9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 60X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is a Customs Broker licensed under the erstwhile Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations (CHALR), 2004 as a Customs House Agent and is thereafter, called the Customs Broker as per the new Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2013 which have replaced the earlier CHALR, 2004. 3. They are licensed by the Kolkata Customs House but have been operating in Delhi also. In an investigation by the DRI, Delhi Zonal Unit, it was found that 53.8 lakh sticks of cigarette were attempted to be smuggled by concealing them in HDPE granules imported under the name of R.S. Import and Export (IEC No. 0511092610 dt.27.02.2012) by three persons, viz., Shri Ajay Sagar, Shri Parshotam & Shri Gagan H. Vinayak. This consignment was imported under Bill o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roker license under Regulation 20(1) of CHALR, 2004 (now Regulation 18 of CBLR, 2013). He also ordered forfeiture of the entire security deposit made by the appellant under Regulation 20(1) of CHALR, 2004 (now Regulation 18 of CBLR, 2013). The adjudicating authority has also recorded in his order at Para 26 as follows: "26. Apart from the current proceedings, I also find that the CB has already been penalized for their role in smuggling of prohibited items and others vide Order-in-Original No. KOL/CUS/AIRPORT/ADMN/17/2016 dated 30.08.2016 passed by Commissioner of Customs (A & A), Customs House, Kolkata. An another SCN dated 22.09.2017 under CBLR, 2013 has been issued to the CB for their role in the smuggling of branded TVs etc. Hence I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... herefore, we find that on the day the order was passed there was no customs broker's license of the appellant in existence. There is nothing on record to show that the earlier revocation has been set aside by any higher judicial forum. We also find that the entire security deposit has already been forfeited in the earlier order and there is nothing on record to show that any higher judicial forum had set aside such forfeiture. There is no other penalty in the impugned order. We, therefore, find that the impugned order is bad in law inasmuch as the license which has been revoked is non est as it had already been revoked and the forfeited amount of security deposit also does not exist as it had already been forfeited. 8. We also find force ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
