9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 877X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Regulation 14 of the CBLR, 2018. (iii) The CB Licence No.11/1018 is ordered to be revoked under Regulation 14 of the CBLR, 2018. (iv) That the CB surrender the original License as well as all the 'F', 'G' & H' cards issued there under immediately 13. This order is passed without prejudice to any other action which may be taken against the Customs Broker and their employees under the Customs Act, 1962, or any other act for the time being in force in the Union of India." 2.1 The appellant is a Customs Broker holding Licence No.11/1018 issued by Mumbai Customs, under Regulation 7(1) of Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013 (now Regulation 7(2) of CBLR, 2018). 2.2 Investigation was undertaken by Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) in the matter of M/s. ABC Cotspin Pvt. Ltd. (ABCCPL) on the basis of complaint made by various Banks, namely State Bank of India, Bank of Baroda and Axis Bank. They reported that ABCCPL committed a fraud on them by availing export finance by submission of export bills without making exports. 2.3 Investigation report pointed out that checklists have been issued to ABCCPL by M/s. RSS Shipping Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Kot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 3.3 Learned Authorised Representative reiterates the findings recorded in the impugned order. 4.1 We have considered the impugned order along with the submissions made in the appeal and during the course of argument. 4.2 The Principal Commissioner has in her order recorded the findings as follows:- "6. In respect of Regulation 11(d) of CBLR 2013 it has been alleged that the CB did not advise their client to comply with the provisions of the Act, other allied Acts and the Rules and Regulations thereof, and in case of non compliance, did not bring the matter to the notice of the DC/AC of Customs. The defence submission stated that on the basis of the checklist, no export can take place; that the CB never issues a Bill of Lading; that under the CBLR 2018, there is no obligation to meet the Exporter and there is no authority with the CB to ask for return of the house BL from the exporter. I find that the investigation revealed that M/s. ABCCPL (the exporting firm) connived with CB M/s. RSS Shipping (who were using the CB licence M/s. Ramesh Transport Company) other CBS and freight forwarding companies to conceal the facts that the exports of merchandise did not take negotiation/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... above discussion clearly proves contravention of provisions of Regulation 10(d) of the CBLR, 2018. 7. In respect of 10(e) of the CBLR, 2018, the defense submission stated that Inquiry Officer had recorded a finding that the CB neither restricted the freight forwarder or the exporter for wrong doings nor informed the Department about the misuse of check list, house BL/MTDs; that unless and until it is established that the CB had any prior knowledge about the misuse of the checklist, the CB has no obligation to inform the Department about the same. I find that Shri Ramesh P. Mange, proprietor of the CB M/s. Ramesh Transport Company allowed his CB Licence to be used by M/s. RSS Shipping P. Ltd, unlawfully for uploading shipping bills data prepared by them on the "ICEGATE" of Customs Department. It is evident from the investigation that the CB obtained the House BLS / MTDS from freight forwarders before or without receipt of merchandise/handing over merchandise and completion of Customs/ export formalities (before clearance of cargo by Customs for export) and without LEO date, and handed over those BLS/ MTDs along with the checklist to M/s RSS Shipping for onward submission to M/s. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... zing the checklist and House BL/MTD for discounting of export bills, the CB M/s. Ramesh Transport Company did not ask M/s. ABCCPL and its directors to return the House BL/MTDs for which shipments were delayed beyond 15 days. The Inquiry Officer observed that had the CB asked for return of BLs, MTDs issued on the basis of checklists generated by them, further misuse of checklists and wrongly stamped BLs could be stopped, therefore, this act on the part of CB proved to be far from being efficient as the CB failed to use requisite knowledge and skill in the instant case to be a reliable CB under the Regulations. Having perused the findings of the Inquiry Officer, I am of the considered opinion that the findings of the inquiry officer are based on the available evidence, facts and circumstances of the case. I agree with the findings of the Inquiry Officer with respect to Regulation 10(m) of the CBLRL, 2018. Thus, the CB violated the provisions of Regulation 10 (m) of CBLR, 2018, since they had malafide intention which proves the contravention of provisions of Regulation 10 (m) of the CBLR, 2018. 11. In view of the paras above I find that Shri Ramesh P. Mange, Partner of CB M/s. Rame ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for availing the fraudulent export credits from the Banks. These documents have been issued by M/s. RSS Shipping Pvt. Ltd. who was operating the CHA licence in the name of M/s. Ramesh Transport Co. (the appellant herein) and M/s. Harin Transport. 4.4 Proceedings were initiated against the appellant and also Custom Broker, M/s. Harin Transport. After considering the same set of evidence and investigation, the Commissioner at Nagpur has dropped the entire proceedings against M/s. Harin Transport. In para 7.8 of his order, the Commissioner has observed as follows: "7.8. I find that the SCN relies upon the statement of Shri Sanjeev Verma, Director of M/s. RSS Shipping Pvt. Ltd. recorded by SFIO under the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013. I find the only witness is not consistent in his statement as at one point he stated that the CB authorized him orally to use his CB Licence and afterwards he stated that CB firm is not aware of the fraudulent action took place with Bankers with help of Checklists. In this regard, the Charged CB vehemently denied that they never authorize Shri Verma to use their CB licence and submitted that their authorized employees were looking after the cle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the Collector, the appellants again raised the issue specifically that the process followed by and the product of the appellants were identical with that of M/s. Chandulal K.P. Patel and Company and that the appellants product should be similarly classified under Heading 24.01. While upholding the decision of the Assistant Collector, the Collector did not consider this aspect of the matter at all. The point was again taken specifically in the appellants' appeal before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal however dismissed the appeal and said : "The appellants have stated that some of the manufacturers who were producing similar goods, were not paying any excise duty on their production. These matters are not before us and it is neither possible nor desirable for us to deal with these matters. Suffice it to say that each and every case has to be examined in the light of our above observations, and it is for the competent Central Excise Officers to come to correct decisions in consonance with the principles of uniformity, equity and justice". 4. It is difficult to understand the reasoning of the Tribunal. The least that the Tribunal could ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
