TMI Blog2020 (7) TMI 387X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the appellant wherein the High Court as well as the Tribunal from time to time has held that the Customs Broker is not supposed to physically visit the premises of the importer/exporter and if he verifies the documents on the basis of the official records, then he cannot be alleged to have violated the regulations of CBLR. Further, it is found that after the impugned order dt. 19/05/2020 was passed upholding the denial of renewal as well as suspension of licence, an inquiry was ordered by the Commissioner, under Regulation 17 of CBLR 2018, which is still pending and has not been completed. Since the enquiry is pending, the finding of the Commissioner in the impugned order that the appellant has violated Regulations 10(d), 10(n) and 13(7) of CBLR 2018 is without any basis because the appellant has submitted that he has not violated the regulations on the basis of the decisions rendered by the Tribunal and the High Court. The show-cause notice issued to the appellant by Trichy Commissionerate is pending before the High Court of Madras (Madurai Bench). In view of the above, during the pendency of the enquiry ordered by the Commissioner of Customs, the Commissioner should not h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pted the documents and filed Shipping Bills Nos.4755077, 4755125, 4755148, 4755121 and 4755102 dt. 09/06/2019 through E-system duly signed by G Card holder through digital signature. There after alleging overvaluation, the goods were detained by Trichy Customs and investigation was conducted and the Branch Manager of the appellant Shri Sabeer Ahamed Sayeed appeared before the investigating officer and his statement was recorded. Thereafter, the Trichy Commissionerate issued show-cause notice No.3/2020 dt. 25/02/2020 directing the appellant to show-cause as to why penalty under Customs Act, 1962 should not be imposed. As the appellant has no role in the alleged mis-declaration of value by exporter which was the sole reason for issuing the show-cause notice, the appellant challenged the said show-cause notice before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras (Madurai Bench) by filing Writ Petition (C) 5975/2020. But due to lock down, Hon'ble High Court has not yet considered the matter. But during the pendency of the Writ Petition, a prohibition order dt. 16/03/2020 was issued by Trichy Commissionerate against the appellant withdrawing the permission to work in Trichy Commissionerate f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2018 and has made proper inquiries on the basis of documents furnished by the exporter and has also produced the copy of the website where the exporter M/s. Swiss Global have been issued GST and Import Export Code (IEC). He further submitted that the alleged illegality is carried out on 14/06/2019 and there is no reason or justification to invoke the provision under Rule 16 of CBLR 2018 for immediate suspension of the licence. He also submitted that once the licence has already expired on 13/04/2020, there was no need to pass an order of suspension of the licence and the order of suspension and denial of renewal of licence simultaneously is, prima facie, illegal and against the law. He further submitted that the alleged violation committed by the appellant wherein penalty was imposed on the appellant earlier were wrongly relied upon by the Commissioner for denial of the renewal of the licence because he has challenged all those decisions by filing the appeals before the CESTAT and which are pending. He further submitted that the learned Commissioner has relied upon the statement of the Branch Manager working in Cochin whereas the fact of the matter is that Mr. Sabeer Ahamed Sayee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the broker cannot lead to any inference of violation of regulations failure of which had resulted in his passing the most unreasonable and unjustified order not maintainable in law . Further the CESTAT, Delhi in the case of APS Freight Travels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC [2016(344) ELT 602 ] held that when the importer s details are available in IEC, PAN card, 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 licence, only on the ground that on later verification, the importer was not found in the indicated premises, is not justifiable, more so when the SIIB officers during the course of investigation had found that the appellants/customs broker had not acted in hand-in-glove with the exporter and their beneficiaries, so as to benefit any pecuniary advantage . Besides the above said decisions, the appellant also relied upon the following decisions:- i. Ashiana Cargo Services Vs. CC(I G) [2014(302) ELT 161 (Del.)] ii. Exim Cargo Services Vs. CC(General) [2019(368) ELT 1024 (Del.)] ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce on the basis of Order-in-Original(Prohibition) order dt. 16/03/2020 issued by the Commissioner of Customs, Trichy prohibiting the appellant to transact the business under their jurisdiction. Further, we find that in the said order of the Commissioner of Customs, Trichy, the allegation against the appellant is that they have contravened the Regulations 10(d), 10(n) and 13(7) of CBLR 2018 in respect of the export made by M/s. Swiss Global by filing various shipping bills dt. 09/06/2019. Further we find that the appellant had already applied for renewal of his licence by moving an application in the month of October 2019. Further we find that the order dt. 21/04/2020 whereby the renewal of Customs Broker licence has been denied by the Commissioner was passed without following the principles of natural justice and without affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellant which is clear violation of principles of natural justice especially when his application for renewal of licence is already pending. Further we find that once the Customs Broker licence of the appellant has already expired on 13/04/2020, there was no need to pass an order of suspension because after 13/04/2020, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
