TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 319X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... k International) to be the authorized representative not only for the exporter but also for the customs house agent. Absence of such authorization is more than sufficient to prove the violation of 10(a) of CBLR, 2018. Violation of 10(b) of CBLR, 2018 - HELD THAT:- The transactions of business in relation to customs house is the idea behind Regulation 10(b). Transaction of business in customs station in case of exports is filing of shipping bills along with the invoice, packing list, checklist and all other requisite documents. In today s era of virtual transactions/online processings, physical presence in customs house for transacting the business is not required. However, the intent of the provision remains the same that business has not to be transacted by an unauthorized person i.e. Shri Pran Shanker Jha that too to the notice and knowledge of the appellant. Apparently and admittedly the customs house related transaction of business has been done by an unauthorized person. The same is sufficient to confirm violation of 10(b) of CBLR, 2018. Violation of Regulation 10(d) of CBLR, 2018 - HELD THAT:- The appellant had no means to verify item wise quantity or weight of the goods and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... light of given findings - the violations as far as Regulation 10(d), 10(j), 10(k) and 10(q) of CBLR, 2018 are concerned are not confirmed - the ends of justice would be met if the order of forfeiting security deposit and imposing penalty is upheld and as far as the order of revocation of license is concerned, the same be set aside. Appeal allowed in part. - HON BLE DR. RACHNA GUPTA , MEMBER ( JUDICIAL ) And HON BLE MR. P. V. SUBBA RAO , MEMBER ( TECHNICAL ) Shri L. B. Yadav , Consultant for the Appellant Shri Girijesh Kumar , Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER DR. RACHNA GUPTA The present appeal has been filed to assail the Order-in- Original No. 43/2022 dated 07.07.2022 vide which the revocation of appellant s customs broker license, forfeiture of security deposit and imposition of penalty of Rs.50,000/- has been ordered. The facts in brief are as follows: Pursuant to acting on an intelligence, the goods covered by three shipping bills filed by M/s. Batra Enterprises were got examined by the officers of SIIB, ICD (Export), Tughlakabad, New Delhi on 29.01.2021 at ICD Tughlakabad Port. The aforesaid shipping bills were filed through M/s. Durga Link Logistics Pvt. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s-declaration of weight of pan masala in all three of the shipping bills, being the custodian of file has neglected its duties by non-uploading the proper documents, has failed to discharge his duties as customs broker. He was alleged to have contravened Regulation 10(a), 10(b), 10(d), 10(e), 10(j), 10(k) and 10(q) of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 (herein after referred as CBLR, 2018). Accordingly, the license of the appellant with the validity till 31.03.2031, was proposed to be revoked and the penalty was proposed to be imposed. The said proposal has been confirmed vide the order under challenge. Being aggrieved the appellant is before this Tribunal. 3. We have heard Shri L.B. Yadav, learned Consultant for the appellant and Shri Girijesh Kumar, learned Authorized Representative for the department. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has mentioned that impugned order has been passed in sheer violation of principles of natural justice as the appellant was not given any opportunity to cross-examine Shri Pran Shanker Jha, also for the reason that no finding has been given with respect to the submissions made by the appellant. It is impressed upon that appellant had alw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that different set of packing list/invoice was found, one in the docket file and another which was uploaded on e-sanchit to avail the undue export benefits. The appellant/CB was well aware of the same, still failed to bring it to the notice of the department. The violation of Regulation 10(d) and 10(e) of CBLR, 2018 has rightly been confirmed. Once there is no denial for the appellant to be the custodian of the docket file, the Regulation 10(j), 10(k) and 10(q) has been violated by the appellant. It is submitted that the appellant has failed to produce any evidence to counter the allegations against him. Though he prayed for cross- examination of Shri Pran Shanker Jha and the same was allowed also. However the cross-examination could not be conducted because Shri Pran Shanker Jha had resigned the office of freight forwarder and was no more available for the purpose. With these submissions, it is impressed upon that there is no infirmity in the order under challenge. Appeal is accordingly prayed to be dismissed. 7. Having heard the rival contentions and perusing the entire records, we observe and hold as follows: The present case is arising out of basic fact that the appellant, bei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or through an authorised employee duly approved by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be. Though it is submitted on behalf of the appellant that no authorized person has ever appeared in customs station for the appellant and that there is no provision under CBLR, 2018 imposing restrictions on filing on shipping bills from outside of customs station through an outsider. But simultaneously, it has been stated that Shri Pran Shanker Jha had filed the check list and shipping bill not from the customs station but from the office of the appellant stationed at IP Extension. No doubt Section 2(13) of Customs Act, 1962 defines customs station to mean any customs port, customs airport, international courier terminal, foreign post office or land customs station but the intent of Regulation 10(b) is that while transacting business in customs station, the customs broker has to transact either personally or through a authorized employee duly approved by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs as the case may be. To our opinion the transactions of business in relation to customs house is the idea behind Regulat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uantity allegation is concerned, we observe from the said Order-in-Appeal that the goods were duly sealed by the exporter after obtaining self sealing permission for the department. Hence, the appellant/CB had no occasion to verify the quantity and weight of the goods sealed. The appellant had no means to verify item wise quantity or weight of the goods and in fact as, customs broker, he is not required to do so. With these findings, the penalty as was imposed upon the appellant under Section 114 (iii) was also set aside. Once there was no knowledge with the appellant about the alleged mis- declaration, once it was a case of clerical mistake and over sightedness while preparing invoice/packing list no question arises for informing anything to the department. Violation of 10(d) therefore is not sustainable. We rely upon the decision in the case of Perfect Cargo Logistics Vs CC (A G), New Delhi reported as 2021 (376) ELT 649 (Tri.-Del.) wherein it is held that customs house agent merely processing agent of documents with respect of clearance of goods and not inspector to weigh genuineness of transaction and that if documents submitted to G- card holder, prima facie appear to be authe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing bill, transhipment application, etc., all correspondence, other papers relating to his business as Customs Broker and accounts including financial transactions in an orderly and itemized manner as may be specified by the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs or the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be. (q) co-operate with the Customs authorities and shall join investigations promptly in the event of an inquiry against them or their employees. It has been observed that the correct invoice/packing list was not uploaded on e-sanchit by the CB but by the freight forwarder who the CB allowed to use his credentials. He could not satisfactorily answer about the change in the invoice, the violation has been confirmed. We observe that there is nothing on record to show that the appellant refused access to or concealed or removed or destroyed the whole or any part of the documents related to impugned shipping bills. There is sufficient evidence on record to show that G-Card holder of the appellant had deposited the docket file to the scanning department of the export shed who otherwise is the custodian of the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
