TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1531X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the exporters did not exist at the address indicated therein he should not have filed the shipping bills - there is strong force in the contention of the revenue that appellant had indeed sublet his license for the shipping bills in question to be filed. Shri S. Uma Mahesh had in fact indicated that he runs a separate company by name M/s VD Logistics which runs the business on its own using the license of the appellant. Retraction of statement during the cross examination - Held that:- When Shri S. Uma Mahesh had retracted the statement during the cross examination, it would have been proper for departmental officers to have further questioned him about the amounts being transferred at the rate of ₹ 25,000/- per month. When he sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rejected/torn/damaged items of leather like material with negligible value as 100% pure leather items with a mala fide intention to claim drawback. After investigating the matter, the officers seized the goods and a show cause notice was issued by the Asst. Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore proposing action against the concerned persons. Following up this case, they investigated another case in which Shri Syed Mohamed Zubril, Shri Ravindranath Tagore Subramania Bharathi, Smt Amritha Priya Rammohan and Shri Jayaraman P Paneerselvam floated several proprietary/ partnership firms using fake addresses and obtained Import-Export Certificate (IEC) from DGFT, Bangalore to fraudulently avail drawback and other benefits. Through these fraudulen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s case the appellant was collecting ₹ 25,000/- per month from Shri S. Uma Mahesh who in turn has been filing shipping bills using the license of the appellant. 2. As per Regulation 11(a) of CBLR, 2013, the customs broker is required to obtain authorization from each of the companies or firms by whom he is employed as a Customs Broker and the appellant has failed to obtain any such authorisation. 3. As per Regulation 11(b) of CBLR, 2013 the customs broker shall transact business of the customs station either personally or through an employee approved by the Dy. Commissioner or Asst. Commissioner of Customs. In this case the appellant has sublet his license to Shri S. Uma Mahesh for processing exports. 4. As per Regulation 11(n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oms and subsequently adjudicated. During personal hearing before the adjudicating authority the appellant cross examined Shri S. Uma Mahesh who said that he is using the license of the appellant. During the cross examination Shri S. Uma Mahesh retracted his statement regarding paying ₹ 25,000/- per month to the appellant for using the license. He said that he had signed the statement before the DRI under threat. 5. After considering the arguments, the learned adjudicating authority came to the conclusion that the appellant had, indeed, sublet the customs broker license to Shri S. Uma Mahesh for ₹ 25,000/- per month and revoked the license of the appellant under Regulation 18 read with Regulation 20 of CBLR, 2013. He also orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the bills of entry in question using the license of the appellant. In his statement Shri S. Uma Mahesh explained that he is paying ₹ 25,000/- per month to the appellant for this subletting through NEFT into his bank account. This activity is reflected in the accounts. If Shri S. Uma Mahesh had signed the statement before the DRI under duress, he should have immediately retracted it or done so at the earliest opportunity. In fact, he has not retracted the statement at all until the time he was cross examined before the IO. During this cross examination also, apart from stating that he has not rented the license, he was not able to explain as to why he was transferring ₹ 25,000/- per month to the appellant if he was indeed the e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s indeed an employee of the appellant and not one who sublet his license, then the appellant should have been paying Shri Uma Mahesh and not the other way around. The amount which is transferred to the appellant every month matches with the amount which he said was the fee he pays for subletting the license of the appellant. If the appellant had, himself, filed the shipping bills for the parties in question, he would have had to verify the antecedents of the exporters or at least their existence. If the exporters did not exist at the address indicated therein he should not have filed the shipping bills. We, therefore, find that there is strong force in the contention of the revenue that appellant had indeed sublet his license for the shippi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
