TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 669X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant and has given reasoned finding. Division Bench decision of the principal Bench in the case of Swastik Cargo Ageny Vs. commissioner of Customs [ 2023 (2) TMI 677 - CESTAT NEW DELH ] relied upon by the DR wherein identical allegations were there against the customs broker and the Division Bench after considering the various decisions of the hon ble Supreme Court and the High Court has upheld the revocation of Customs broker license of the customs broker. The appellant is found to be guilty of violation of regulation 10(b), 10(d) and 10(n) CBLR, 2018 - there are no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Commissioner Ludhiana - appeal dismissed. - Customs Appeal No. 60098 of 2023 - Final Order No. 60126 / 2023 - Dated:- 11-5-2023 - HON BLE MR. S. S. GARG , MEMBER ( JUDICIAL ) And HON BLE MR. P. ANJANI KUMAR , MEMBER ( TECHNICAL ) For the Appellant : Shri Sudhir Malhotra , Advocate For the Respondent : Ms. Swati Chopra , Authorized Representative ORDER PER S. S. GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 13.01.2023 passed by the Commissioner of Customs Ludhiana whereby the Commissioner of Customs has revoked ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther misc. items and exporting goods through Customs Broker Ms Meenu Rathore. It was found that Ms Meenu Rathore subleased its licence to Shri Girish Kumar of M/s Global Art Logistics since 2017 on the conditions that (i) she will get Rs. 15000/- as sublease cost (ii) an advance of Rs. 200000/- as pre deposit (iii) office expenditure and Staff expenditure (for Customs Broker service) would be borne monthly by Shri. Girish Kumar. This has been admitted by Shri Girish Kumar of M/s Global Art Logistics in his statement dated 25.10.2021 tendered before investigating authority. The investigation further un-earthed that the IEC of M/s Aly Baba D cor was misused by Sh. Girish Kumar for exporting goods i.e E-waste belonging to Sh. Sunil Kumar by undervaluing and misclassifying the same. Ms Meenu Rathore did not appear for statement before investigating authority despite summons dated 25.03.2022 01.04.2022. From the ICES system it was noticed that goods of similar nature had been earlier exported to Hongkong by filing 98 shipping bills in past also on the same particulars. The investigation conducted by Customs, Delhi concluded by way of issuance of SCN No. 17/SKJ/ADC/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d deemed to have never been issued and cannot be given any credence. He further submitted that neither any statement of representative of Ms. Aly Baba D cor nor of Sh. Sunil Kumar mentioned in para 5 of the show cause notice has been brought on record. Further, there is nothing brought on record regarding overseas payment received against export of goods against alleged 98 shipping bills. There is no report given by the inquiry officer regarding involvement of customs broker in alleged export of goods against 98 shipping bills. He further submitted that during the inquiry, appellant requested the Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana inquiry officer for cross examination of the representative of Ms. Aly Baba D cor who was dealing in export and Sunil Kumar so as to bring on record the factual position; further the appellant requested for cross-examination of Girish Kumar and Dinesh Bhardwaj both G-Card holder but the same was not allowed by the inquiry officer. He further submitted that Girish Kumar and Dinesh Bhardwaj are the G-Card holders, duly authorized by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs to conduct business. The appellant entered into agreement dated 20.04.2017 with Sh. Girish Kumar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Ms. Global Art Logistics in his statement dated 25.10.2021 made before the investigating authority. She also submitted that this kind of unlawful agreement is in violation of the regulation 10(b) of CBLR, 2018. In support of her submission, she relied upon the recent judgment of the Principal Bench in the case of Swastik Cargo Ageny Vs. commissioner of Customs Vide final order no. 50133/2023 wherein identical allegations as in the present case were levelled against the customs broker and the Division Bench at Delhi by detailed judgment has upheld the order of revocation passed by the adjudicating authority and dismissed the appeal of the customs broker. 7. After Considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on records we find that the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant do not have force and are devoid of merit. We find that there are serious allegations made in the show cause notice dated 19.07.2022 against the appellant for contravention of regulation 10(b), 10(d) and 10(n) of licensing regulation, 2018. We also find that on the alleged allegations an inquiry officer was appointed who after affording adequate opportunity to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gh Court of Madras, in Sri Kamakshi Agency Vs Commissioner of Customs, Madras -2001 (129) ELT 29 it has been held that: the grant of licence to act as a Custom House Agent has got a definite purpose and intent. On a reading of the Regulations relating to the grant of licence to act as Custom House Agent, it is seen that while Custom House Agent should be in a position to act as agent for the transaction of any business relating to the entry or departure of conveyance or the import or export of goods at any customs station, he should also ensure that he does not act as an agent for carrying on certain illegal activities of any of the persons, who avail his services as Custom House Agent. In such circumstances, the person playing the role of Custom House Agent has got greater responsibility. The very prescription that one should be conversant with various procedures, including the offences under the Customs Act to act as a Custom House Agent would show that, while acting as Custom House Agent, he should not be a cause for violation of those provisions. A CHA cannot be permitted to misuse his position as a CHA by taking advantage of the access to the department. The grant of lic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reporting to the department. Therefore, we find no reason to show any leniency towards the appellant. At any rate, once violation is noticed, it is not for the Tribunal to interfere with the punishment meted out by the disciplinary authority, viz., the Commissioner unless it shocks our conscience. In this case, it does not. 31. Keeping in view the aforesaid decision as well as the facts findings of the present case, it stands proved that the CB has not discharged the obligations cast on him under the Regulation as the CB fully connived with the freight forwarder and therefore never verified the existence of the exporters or the documents submitted in this regard. The facts of the present case reflects that it is virtually a case of subletting the license as practically the entire transaction of export was controlled managed by the Proprietor of the freight forwarder. Thus, any contravention of the obligations on the CB under the Regulations even without any intent would be sufficient to proceed for imposition of punishment as provided in the Regulations, K. M. Ganatra Co. (supra) . 10. Keeping in view the ratios of various decisions cited supra, we hold the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
