TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 737X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsibilities as per the CBLR, 2018. Whether the said violations attracted the punishment of revocation of the CB license? - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, it is established that the G Card holder was present during the examination of the goods by the Dock officers, and did not inform the authorities as required under Regulation 10(d) and 10(m) of the CBLR, 2018. It is also an admitted fact that the importer in his statement has claimed that the appellant did not inform him of other regulatory compliance requirements for the goods imported by him. This is a clear failure of appellant s duties as a Customs Broker. Infact, the G card holder has accepted that he failed to bring the discrepancies to the notice of the concerned Assistant/Deputy Commissioner as the dock officers did not raise any query. This is not acceptable, as it clearly indicates the abdication of the responsibility by the appellant/his employee, and highlights the mala fide intent of the appellant. Once a violation of CBLR Regulations is admitted, the Revenue has to follow the discipline governing the Customs House Agents and as such, the Commissioner of Customs is empowered to revoke the license of Customs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esent appeal has been filed. 3. The learned counsel submitted that the impugned order is illegal and improper as the appellant had always conducted the business by adhering to the provisions of the Customs Act and the rules and regulations framed thereunder. All the requirements under CBLR were fulfilled. The learned counsel contended that all the charges were denied as they have always conducted their CHA business by following the provisions of Customs Act and the regulations and rules framed thereunder. The learned counsel further contended that no offence had been committed by them in Delhi and they were facing action in Mumbai jurisdiction, where the show cause notice had been issued. As there was no offence report from Delhi jurisdiction, hence no action was warranted in Delhi jurisdiction. The counsel stated that Bills of Entry were filed on the basis of the documents provided by the importers. The Commissioner had failed to appreciate that the appellant had filed the respective Bills of Entry on the basis of import documents provided by the importers, and he was unaware of any alleged manipulation of import invoices. The appellant had no personal interest in the imports, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ), New Delhi 2019 (369) ELT 1739 (Tri.-Delhi), this Tribunal has held that: 21. Admittedly, Shri Chaman Kumar Verma is the G-Card holder of the appellant who was physically and actually involved in the entire series of acts. Apparently and admittedly his activities had never been objected by the appellant nor ever had been questioned nor even been informed to the competent authorities. The appellant is otherwise bound by the act of his G-Card holder. Otherwise also, without the knowledge of the Customs Broker, the goods could not have been diverted. He is equally bound by the act of his authorised representative/agent. Keeping in view the same and the observation of Hon ble Supreme Court in K.M. Ganatra Co. (supra) case about the important duties of the CHA and the amount of due diligence as is required to be observed on their part, we are of the firm opinion that CHA has violated the obligations imposed upon him under CBLR, 2013/2018. The above observations are sufficient to hold that the violation of relevant Regulations is so grave that principle of proportionality is not opined to have been compromised as is impressed upon by the appellant. The failure thereof invites t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ense has been revoked for having contravened the provisions of CBLR, 2018.It is within this factual matrix that one has to view the contraventions of the CBLR, 2018. We may examine the violations in respect of the provisions of the CBLR, 2018. Regulation 10(d): advise his client to comply with the provisions of the Act, other allied Acts and the rules and regulations thereof, and in case of non-compliance, shall bring the matter to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be; The facts as indicated above clearly establishes that the G card holder Sh Jitesh P Mav, who was present during the initial examination of the goods did not inform either the dock officers or the AC/DC regarding the non-compliance of BIS regulations and other clear violations of quantity, Anti dumping duty etc. It has also been stated by the importer that he was not informed by the CB regarding the other compliance requirements. This shows clear failure on the part of the appellant in his duties, as required under 10d of CBLR, 2018. Regulation 10(e) :exercise due diligence to ascertain the correctness of any information which he impart ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reason, a licence is issued only after conducting an examination and after necessary background verifications. It is true that the Customs broker is not an inspector to examine the goods and cannot exercise any powers available to the officers. All that is required of the Customs broker is to fulfill its obligations under the CBLR, 2018. Once it fulfils all its obligations, if an exporter or importer attempts to deal in contraband by bringing goods which are not declared in the documents, the customs broker cannot be held responsible for such violations unless there is evidence that the Customs broker had the knowledge of or was colluding in the offence. In the instant case, it is established that the G Card holder was present during the examination of the goods by the Dock officers, and did not inform the authorities as required under Regulation 10(d) and 10(m) of the CBLR, 2018. It is also an admitted fact that the importer in his statement has claimed that the appellant did not inform him of other regulatory compliance requirements for the goods imported by him. This is a clear failure of appellant s duties as a Customs Broker. Infact, the G card holder has accepted that he fai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
