Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2019 (4) TMI 1189

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of the CB or circumstantial evidence like extra pecuniary gain etc. There is nothing on record to also show that appellant was too prevented from being present personally or through his authorized G Card or H Card representative when called by the investigating agency for participating in the examination of impugned import consignments, the arguments adduced by them in their support are without valid evidences and thus the appellant has violated the provisions of Regulation 11(b). The appellant has not complied with the provisions to regulations CBLR 2013 - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - Customs Appeal No. 50906 of 2018 - Final Order No. 50542/2019 - Dated:- 18-4-2019 - Shri Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) And Shri C.L. Mahar, Member (Technical) Shri Prabhat Kumar, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Rakesh Kumar, Authorized Representative (DR) for the Respondent. ORDER Per. C.L. Mahar :- Briefly stated facts are that the appellant is holder of a Customs Broker Licence No. R-57/DEUCUS/2006 (PAN No. AAHCM8516H) valid upto 14/05/2022 issued by the Commissioner of Cu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... all these regulation i.e. Regulations 11(a), 11(b), 11(d), 11(n) 11(j) of the Custom Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013. The relevant regulations reads as : Regulation 11(a) - A Custom Broker shall obtain an authorization from each of the companies, firms or individuals by whom he is for the time being employed as a Customs Broker and produce such authorization whenever required by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be; Regulation 11(b): A Customs Broker shall transact business in the Customs Station either personally or through an employee duly approved by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be. Regulation 11(d): A Custom Broker shall advise his client to comply with the provisions of the Act and in case of non-compliance, shall bring the matter to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be; Regulation 11(j): A Customs Broker shall not refuse access to, conceal, remove or destroy the whole or any .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... to produce any document in support of their claim of being authorized representatives of the appellant. It was also observed that Shri Surender Singh and Shri Narender were neither any F card not G card not H card holders of the appellant firm. Although the appellant has a G card holder Sh. Ajesh Kumar on its rolls, but he was not present at the time of verification and examination of the cargo. That it was Shri Surender only, who was using the appellant s licence for clearing of the import consignments and was dealing with the importers for said imports. That the high value goods suspected to be concealed/mis-declared had been removed from the original consignments and the same had been replaced by Shri Surender which is evident from the fact that description of goods declared at the time of import and goods found during panchnama proceedings were different and there is also mis-matching of markings on the packets versus markings present in Packing list presented before the Customs. That the necessary documents such as KYC, Authorizations and even packing list was not produced promptly to aid the DRI investigation. Submission of the requisite documents at later stage will not .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ter filing the bills of entry, the representative of appellant Sh. Ajesh Kumar (G-Card holder) was present in Air Cargo Complex (Import) for examination and assessment of imported goods but he was ordered by the Shed Officer to move to the group in New Custom House regarding some paper work and when he came back, the Officers of DRI closed the main gate and did not allow anyone to enter in the complex including Sh. Ajesh Kumar (G-Card holder). That when the Officers of Customs started examination of the goods, under the aforesaid bills of entry, no representative of the appellant was present in Cargo Complex except Shri Surender, Director of M/s K.R. Express Pvt. Ltd. (a Customs Broker) who was known to the appellant and was allowed to represent him in cargo complex. Further, refuting the charge of violation of Regulation 11(d), he argued that the goods were declared as per import documents furnished by the importers and there is no way to ascertain the veracity or correctness of contents of these consignments without examination. That there is no evidence or allegation that the Appellant CB had any prior knowledge about the actual contents of the consignments. Hence, no mis-declar .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... held that charge of violation of Regulation 11(n) regarding failure to verify the antecedents, correctness of the IEC number, and identity of the client does not sustain when IEC number is found to be correct as also the address of the importer. Further all the importers have joined the investigations He further argued that there is no allegation of any pecuniary benefit to the Appellant nor there is any evidence that the Appellant had wrongly advised the importers. He cited certain case laws which suggested that the CHA cannot be penalized for the wrong declarations made by the importers. He lastly argued that the revocation of Licence is likely to affect the livelihood of many persons and hence the impugned order should not be allowed to sustain. On the other hand the Learned DR has reiterated the findings in the impugned order and has argued that the revocation and forfeiture of security deposit be sustained. 5. We have carefully gone through the facts of the case and arguments made by the Learned Advocate of the Appellant and the Learned DR. We find that the required KYC were produced by the Appellant to the Department at a later stage to the Licence Issuing Auth .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates