TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 79X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as a trainee officer. Further, there is no finding of the Inquiry Officer against the involvement of the appellant in the offence committed by the exporter regarding the overvaluation of the export goods. In view of the finding of the Inquiry Officer, it was not required to pass the impugned order by the Commissioner of Customs. Further, the Commissioner has also violated the principles of natural justice without putting the appellant to notice the reasons for his dis-agreement with the findings of the Inquiry Officer which according to us is the basic requirement of law - Further, in various decisions this Courts have consistently held that the extreme penalty of revocation should be invoked only when there is a clear involvement of the appellant in mis-declaring the value of the goods in order to avail pecuniary benefits. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - C/20212/2019-DB - Final Order No. 20446/2019 - Dated:- 31-5-2019 - MR. S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER And MR. P. ANJANI KUMAR, TECHNICAL MEMBER N. Viswanathan, Advocate For the Appellant Smt. Kavita Podwal, Superintendent, AR For the Respondent ORDER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... violated Regulation 11 (a) (d) (e) (f) (n) of CBLR, 2013 (now Regulation 11 (a) (d) (e) (f) (n) of CBLR, 2018) and issued an order prohibiting them to operate at Kandla Port as customs broker. The said Order of Prohibition was challenged by the appellant before the Ahmedabad Tribunal and the Tribunal vide its order No. A/12130/2018 dated 08.10.2018 has set aside the Order of Prohibition and remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority to decide the case afresh after giving them sufficient opportunity of personal hearing. In the meantime, when the appeal of the appellant was pending before CESTAT, Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore, based on the Prohibition Order issued by the Commissioner of Customs, Kandla dated 01.05.2018, issued a SCN dated 02.08.2018 proposing to revoke the license granted to them under Regulation 14 of CBLR, 2018 along with proposal to forfeit the security deposit and imposition of penalty for contravention of various Regulations and also appointed Assistant Commissioner of Customs as an Inquiry Officer. Pursuant to the Order of the Tribunal, the appellant appeared before the Commissioner and the Commissioner of Customs, Kandla vide Order-in-Original ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or arriving at the findings recorded therein after properly appreciating all the facts and law involved and by due consideration of the evidence available on record to conclude that there was no substantial evidence to prove the collusion between the appellant and the exporter in the alleged attempt to mis-declare and overvalue the export goods. He further submitted that the Adjudicating Authority in the absence of any offence report being received by him ought not to have proceeded against the appellant on the basis of Prohibition Order passed against them by the Learned Commissioner of Customs belatedly on 01.05.2018 even when the said authority had issued the SCN to the exporter and others, including the appellant herein as early as on 28.11.2017. He further submitted that the Prohibition Order passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Kandla cannot be treated as an offence report and further the said Prohibition Order was finally lifted vide Order dated 01.01.2019 and the appellant was permitted to operate at the Kandla Customs Port and other Ports. He further submitted that after lifting of the Prohibition Order, there was no need for the Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore to ini ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion of the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of KVS Cargo v. Commissioner of Customs (General), NCH, New Delhi reported in 2019 (365) ELT 392 (Del.) wherein the Hon ble Court observed that a customs broker cannot be expected to carry out further investigations and independent inquiry not only about the existence of importing firm but also about its real owner which is beyond the mandate of law and the role ascribed and found against broker cannot lead to any inference of violation of the regulations failure of which had resulted in his passing the most unreasonable and unjustified order not maintainable in law. He also relied upon the decision in the case of APS Freight Travels Pvt. Ltd. v. CC [2016 (344) ELT 602 (Tri. Del.) which has held that when the importer s details as available in IEC, PAN Cards, Bank Account and electricity have been checked by the appellant, no physical verification of importer s premises is mandated in the regulations nor it is a general requirement as per business practice and the order of revocation of license, only on the ground that on later verification the importer was not found in the indicated premises, is not justifiable., more so, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... usion issued order prohibiting the appellant to operate at the Kandla Port as a customs broker. The Prohibition Order was challenged before the CESTAT at Ahmedabad and the Tribunal vide its Order dated 08.10.2018 set aside the prohibition order and remanded the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority to decide the case afresh after giving them sufficient opportunity of personal hearing. Further, we find that the Commissioner of Customs, Kandla on remand passed the Order-in-Original dated 01.01.2019 and lifted the Prohibition Order dated 01.05.2018 earlier passed and allowed the appellants to operate their business at Customs House, Kandla. While lifting the Prohibition Order, the Commissioner observed that the lifting of the Prohibition Order is subject to further outcome of proceedings initiated by the Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore. Further, we find that, in the meantime, the Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore on the basis of said Prohibition Order issued the SCN to the appellant alleging violation of various Regulations as prescribed in CBLR, 2018 and appointed the Inquiry Officer. We also find that the said Inquiry Officer after conducting of detailed inquiry and examinin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
