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

2020 (6) TMI 315

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he correctness of the documents submitted before taking up of the work for any importer. There is no stipulation or legal requirement to physically verify the business premises or residential premises of the importer and also to have a personal meeting with the importer before taking up the work for any importer. The ratio of the COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS VERSUS HIM LOGISTICS PVT. LTD. [ 2017 (1) TMI 747 - DELHI HIGH COURT] is squarely applicable in the present case and by following the said ratio, the appellant has not violated Regulation 11(n) in view of the evidence given by them before the Inquiry Officer. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Customs Appeal No. 20163 of 2019 - Final Order No. 20358/2020 - Dated:- 12- .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n 23/09/2016 and sample was drawn and the goods were seized for conducting further investigation and statement of various persons were recorded. On completion of investigation, Principal Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai issued a show-cause notice bearing F.No.SD/INT/APU/Misc-04/2016-17 dt. 17/03/2017 proposing confiscation of the goods seized and imposition of penalty on various persons including the appellant. Based on the said investigation, Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai issued prohibition order dt. 06/10.04.2018 prohibiting the appellant from carrying out the work of Custom Broker in Mumbai Zone and the said prohibition order was forwarded to the Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore. On that basis, the Commissioner of Customs issued a sho .....

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 Inquiry officer and revoked the licence of the appellant. He further submitted that the Commissioner ought to have given the reasons for his disagreement with the findings of the Inquiry Report thereby offering an opportunity to the appellant to make effective submissions. He further submitted that the Commissioner has travelled beyond the allegations in the show-cause notice also. He further submitted that the Inquiry Officer has dropped the allegation of violation of Regulations 11(a), 11(d) and 11(e) of CBLR 2013 and upheld only the violation of Regulation 11(n). He further submitted that as per Regulation 11(n), the allegation is that the appellant did not verify the existence of exporter at the declared address by reliable, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r. There is no stipulation or legal requirement to physically verify the business premises or residential premises of the importer and also to have a personal meeting with the importer before taking up the work for any importer. He further submitted that the said decision of the Tribunal has been affirmed by the Hon ble High Court of Delhi reported in 2017(348) ELT 625(Del.). 4.2. Learned counsel also relied upon the following judgments in support of his submission that the appellants have not violated any of the regulations and has performed all the duties which are expected from a Customs Broker as per the decisions rendered by various courts:- a. Shri Manjunatha Shipping Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC, Bangalore [Final Order No.21867-218 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... clearance of cargo or baggage; (n) verify antecedent, correctness of Importer Exporter Code (IEC) number, identity of his client and functioning of his client at the declared address by using reliable, independent, authentic documents, data or information; 6.2. On the basis of those allegations of violation of Regulations, a show-cause notice was issued and inquiry was conducted and the Inquiry Officer after giving an opportunity to the appellant submitted detailed Inquiry Report whereby the Inquiry Officer has dropped the allegation of violation of Regulations 11(a), 11(d) and 11(e) but upheld the violation of Regulation 11(n). The said Report was submitted to the Commissioner and the Commissioner has not considered the report wh .....

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