TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 1032X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al provision for the reason that after serving show-cause notice on dated 25.11.2021 to the Appellant, causing and completing inquiry by 21.03.2022 concerning legality of suspension of licence made on 07.09.2021 which was admittedly done beyond 90 days without any justifiable excuse, he had issued a disagreement memo to the inquiry in which the charges were not proved despite the fact that Regulation 17(6) (7) had not contemplated such a mechanism. In the instant case the report of inquiry was not furnished to the Appellant seeking his response in compliance to para 6 of Regulation 17 apparently for the reason that the report was not against the Appellant. However, in complete disregard of the report and in the absence of a representatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... And HON BLE MR. ANIL G. SHAKKARWAR , MEMBER ( TECHNICAL ) Shri N. D. George , Advocate for the Appellant Shri S. K. Hatangadi , Assistant Commissioner , Authorised Representative for the Respondent ORDER PER : DR. SUVENDU KUMAR PATI Legality of revocation of Customs Broker licence including forfeiture of security amount under Regulation 14 of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulation, 2018 (CBLR) as well as imposition of penalty of Rs.50,000/- under Regulation 18 of CBLR, even after absolution of liabilities in the inquiry report is assailed in this appeal. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, is that Appellant is a Customs Broker who was charged with violation of Regulation 10(d) and 10(n) of the CBLR, 2018 after ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmissioner of Customs versus Him Logistics Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2017 (348) E.LT 625 (Del.), Thawerdas Wadhoomal versus Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai reported in 2008 (221) E.LT 252 (Tri. - Mumbai), APS Freight Travels Pvt Ltd. versus Commissioner of Customs (General), New Delhi reported in 2016 (344) E.LT 602 (Tri.- Del.), Poonia Brothers versus Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Jaipur reported in 2019 (370) E.L.T 1074 (Tri. - Del.), Shasta Freight Services Pvt. Ltd versus Pr. Commissioner of Customs., Hyderabad reported in 2019 (368) E.LT 41 (Telangana), Pr. Commissioner of Customs versus Shasta Freight Service Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2022 (381) E.LT 436 (S.C.), learned Counsel for the Appellant Mr. N.D. George argued ab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be, and shall require the Customs Broker to submit, within the specified period not being less than thirty days, any representation that he may wish to make against the said report. (7) The Principal Commissioner or Commissioner of Customs shall, after considering the report of the inquiry and the representation thereon, if any, made by the Customs Broker, pass such orders as he deems fit either revoking the suspension of the license or revoking the license of the Customs Broker within ninety days from the date of submission of the report by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, under sub-regulation (5) : Provided tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt, prepared after taking evidence and recording findings against the offence report containing summary of investigation and prima facie framing of charge into the acts of omission and commission by the Customs Broker, if any. It is needless to mention here that inquiry involves a judicial process in which evidence is weighed and that stands in a much higher footing than investigation conducted primarily for collection of evidence to make out the offence. This being the dictate of law, we are of the considered view that the Principal Commissioner of Customs (General) had exceeded his jurisdiction in proceeding against the Customs Broker, despite charges being not established in the inquiry report. Hence the order. THE ORDER 6. The a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
