TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 1133X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the case of SANTON SHIPPING SERVICES VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ 2017 (10) TMI 621 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] had occasion to consider whether the time-limit prescribed in the Regulation for proceedings of revocation of license is mandatory or directory. It was held that non-compliance of the time limit prescribed in the Regulation is fatal and the order of revocation of license passed without complying with the time limit cannot sustain. Merits of the case Regulation 10(d), (e) and (n) of CBLR, 2018 r/w CBLR, 2013 - Regulation 10(d), (e) and (n) of CBLR, 2018 r/w CBLR, 2013 - case of department is that appellant allowed Shri A. Sathish to use their Customs Broker license as well as to use the login id so as to facilitate illegal imports - HELD THAT:- There is no evidence adduced by the department to show that the appellant had allowed other persons to use their license and login id. Apart from a bald statement in the Show Cause Notice, there is nothing on record to prove these allegations - When the KYC details have been obtained, the appellant cannot be found fault alleging that he did not directly meet the IEC ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. The appellant had not obtained KYC documents and had not verified the antecedents of the importer M/s. Sri Sai Enterprises. They had not verified the identity and functioning of the client also. Shri G. Nathavel, partner of appellant-company had never met the actual IEC holder Smt. Usha Rani of M/s. Sri Sai Enterprises. Their only point of contact was with Shri A. Sathish who was neither proprietor, partner, director nor an authorized signatory of M/s. Sri Sai Enterprises. Appellant failed to verify the fact that the import was actually made by third person Shri A. Madhu Singh by misusing the IEC of Smt. Usha Rani. These facts were never brought to the notice of the Customs. Proper verification of antecedents of the IEC holder and their functioning and their address on record, if done, could have possibly thwarted the smuggling and illegal import of goods. On such facts, appellant was called upon to show cause why the Customs Broker license should not be revoked, security deposit should not be forfeited and why penalty should not be imposed. After due process of law, the original authority ordered revocation of license and forfeiture of security deposit of ₹ 25,000/-. A pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... leted by the department and order of revocation has been passed only on 23.5.2019 beyond the time limit stipulated in Circular 9/2010. Further, there is a delay in giving the inquiry report and the same was given only on 21.2.2019 5. No doubt, the Regulations do not only contemplate action against the erring brokers but also contemplates timely action, but such action has to be initiated against the erring brokers as has been laid down by catena of judgments by various other High Courts, including 3 division bench judgments of our Hon'ble High Court. It is further respectfully submitted that the law of limitation is common to both the customs broker and also the authorities, while the provision not only enables the respondent to levy penalty, but also empowers the respondent to revoke the license, which is an extreme step curtailing the right to carry on any trade or professional as guaranteed by the Constitution of India and therefore the object behind such a provision can only imply that the time limit prescribed under the regulations has to be scrupulously followed, so as thwart unnecessary and unwarranted speculations and other aspects. The object of the enactmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to use the login id as well as the license of the appellant etc. is false and made to suit the case of department. None of the allegations raised in the Show Cause Notice has been established and therefore revocation of license, forfeiture of security deposit or the penalty imposed cannot sustain. He relied upon the decision in Ashiana Cargo Services Vs. Commissioner of Customs - 2014 (302) ELT 161 (Del.) which was affirmed by Hon ble Apex Court as reported in 2015 (320) ELT A175 (SC). 8. The ld. AR Ms. K. Komathi appeared for the Respondent. She strongly stressed that the appellant allowed Shri A. Sathish to use his license as well as the login id to facilitate the illegal imports. They are also guilty of attempting to remove the goods without filing Bill of Entry and without knowledge of Customs. Such access was given by the appellant to Shri A. Sathish by which the high valued BIS / IPR violated and other undeclared goods were imported. If the appellant had obtained KYC documents and also verified the antecedents of the importer M/s. Sri Sai Enterprises, the illegal imports would not have happened. Shri G. Nathavel who is the partner of the appellant company has admit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l. Following these decisions, we are of the considered opinion that the order passed by the Commissioner revoking the license without complying the statutory time limit is against law and cannot sustain. 12. The ld. counsel has argued on merits also. The violations alleged in the Show Cause Notice have been narrated in the paragraphs above. The department alleges that appellant has violated Regulation 10(d), (e) and (n) of CBLR, 2018 r/w CBLR, 2013. The case of department is that appellant allowed Shri A. Sathish to use their Customs Broker license as well as to use the login id so as to facilitate illegal imports. However, there is no evidence adduced by the department to show that the appellant had allowed other persons to use their license and login id. Apart from a bald statement in the Show Cause Notice, there is nothing on record to prove these allegations. It is also alleged that the appellant failed to verify the antecedents of the importer and that they were not in possession of KYC documents. KYC details of the IEC holder was obtained by the appellant and the transactions were done through Shri A. Sathish, who represented on behalf of IEC holder. No direct invo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
