9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 513X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... broker licence along with the forfeiture of security deposit and imposition of fiscal penalty upon the finding of breach of obligations while handling clearance of goods against bills of entry no. 6541438/14.04.2012 and no. 7375227/12.07.2012 filed on behalf of M/s Siddhivinayak Corporation. 2. Though proceedings were purportedly initiated under Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations (CHALR), 2004, the elapsed time since then coupled with supersession by two Regulations therefrom required the competent authority to take recourse to regulation 14 and regulation 18 of Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018; the suspension of the licence on 21st October 2014 had been revoked vide order dated 5th January 2015 by the Tribunal. It would appear that the licensing authority invoked Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations (CHALR), 2004 despite Customs Broker Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2013 being operational by then as the events occurred during the erstwhile regulations. The said obligations were incorporated as regulation 11(d), (e) and (m) of Customs Broker Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2013 and regulation 10(d), (e) and (m) of Customs Broker Licensing Regulation (CBLR), 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e bills of entry had been provisionally assessed under section 18 of Customs Act, 1962 before being finalized subsequently foregoing duty of Rs. 11,39,777 based on an expert opinion as well as finding of Tribunal in a similar dispute pertaining to another importer of Mangalore. In the context of this factual matrix, the appellant has contested the impugned order on merits as well as patent non-application of mind. 5. Not without reason, Learned Counsel for appellant also drew attention to the inordinate delay in concluding the inquiry proceedings, for reasons not attributable to the appellant, that should, of itself, be justification for setting aside the impugned order. According to him, the inquiry ordered on 12th January 2015 was concluded only on 27th July 2021 to be followed by revocation in order of 10th December 2021 and that, in confronting this legal hurdle, the licencing authority had failed to appreciate the spirit of the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Principal Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai v. Unison Clearing P Ltd [2018 (3610 ELT 321 (Bom)] even while indulging in selective culling therefrom to obfuscate the absence of justification for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... transfer to the importer. 8. Learned Authorized Representative took us through the facts and circumstances of unearthing of this gross misuse of scheme in the Foreign Trade Policy while urging us to accept the findings of the inquiry and justifiability of the resultant revocation and other detriments. 9. The imputations against appellant and the charges of breach of obligations rests solely upon the alleged wrongful claim of benefit of notification no. 40/2006-Cus dated 1st May 2006 and no. 98/2009-Cus dated 11th September 2009 for goods that were not included in the list of eligible imports in the impugned authorizations and on the finding by the licencing authority that 'flour' intended by the norms, and incorporated in the authorizations, was of commonly known products that excluded cocoa. It would, however, be improper on our part, in disposing off this challenge under Customs Broker Licencing Regulations, 2018, to venture upon eliciting a distinction that rightly lies within the scope of assessment to duties of customs under Customs Act, 1962. Neither does such empowerment vest in the licencing authority and in revocation proceedings. It should suffice for our purposes that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ting notices under section 124 and section 28 of Customs Act, 1962. 11. Furthermore, the construction that he has placed on the applicability of the decision in re Khushalchand & Co does not sit well with the hierarchical subordination of a quasi-judicial authority to higher appellate jurisdictions let alone the highest court of the land. In upbraiding the departmental authorities for non-acceptance of settled law without even a cursory attempt at challenge to the order of the Tribunal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was merely willing to concede some leeway, though not all of it, by employing the expression 'at least' which appears to have been conveniently overlooked in the findings of the licencing authority. It also appears odd that the licencing authority expects a 'customs broker', required to act in the best interests of its client, to take a restricted, or even constricted, view merely to conform to a view taken by him in an extra jurisdictional context. That certainly is not the stance that the statute requires a 'customs broker' to adopt and, more so, when the assessing authority as well as departmental adjudicating authority too did not feel compelled to contemplate otherwis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
