2015 (4) TMI 1157 - AT - Customs

Tribunal reinstates Custom Broker License after finding no evidence of subletting.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the revocation of the Custom Broker License (CBL) under Regulation 20(7) of the Customs Broker Licensing ... Revocation of CHA licence - Regulation 20(7) of CBLR, 2013 - sub-letting of CBL to M/s. A.H. Enterprises or not? - Held that: - G-Card holder, Shri Harish Singh dealt with the importer or exporter as a partner of M/s. A.H. Enterprises. But the fact M/s. A.H. Enterprises is engaged in providing consultancy and forwarding service and charging for the same and also paying clearance charges to the appellant on raising the invoice by the appellant. Therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant has sublet or transferred their CBL to M/s. A.H. Enterprises. The case of the Revenue is that appellant has issued the invoice on M/s. A.H. Enterprises for nominal amount but M/s. A.H. Enterprises issuing invoices on the importer/exporter on higher amount. We have seen that M/s. A.H. Enterprises is not engaged in the clearance of the goods but undertaking other activities like forwarding or consultancy agency service. Definitely, M/s. A.H. Enterprises might be charging higher amount but on record, Shri Harish Singh, the G-Card holder, is dealing with the clearance work who is an employee of the appellant. Therefore, the charge of sub-letting stands not proved. Revocation set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues:Revocation of Custom Broker License under Regulation 20(7) of CBLR, 2013 based on sub-letting allegations.Analysis:The appellant challenged the revocation of their Custom Broker License (CBL) under Regulation 20(7) of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2013. The case revolved around allegations that the appellant sub-let their CBL to M/s. A.H. Enterprises. The appellant argued that M/s. A.H. Enterprises, a consultancy and forwarding firm, was not subletting the CBL but was providing services through a G-Card Holder who was an employee of the appellant. The appellant contended that the statements and documents obtained during the investigation did not prove the charge of sub-letting. The appellant also highlighted the lack of corroborative evidence from exporters/importers to support the sub-letting allegations. The appellant relied on precedents to support their case.The Revenue, on the other hand, argued that M/s. A.H. Enterprises was using the CBL by paying a monthly fee, and their partners were involved in direct dealings with exporters/importers. The Revenue contended that the activities of M/s. A.H. Enterprises, including maintaining independent accounts and issuing invoices, proved the sub-letting of the CBL. The Revenue emphasized the prohibition on transfer/sublet of CBL under Regulation 11 of CBLR, 2013.After considering the arguments, the Tribunal analyzed the factual matrix of the case. It was established that the G-Card Holder of the appellant dealt with importers/exporters on behalf of the appellant. While M/s. A.H. Enterprises charged for services and paid clearance charges to the appellant, it was concluded that the appellant had not sublet or transferred their CBL. The Tribunal noted that M/s. A.H. Enterprises was engaged in consultancy and forwarding services, not clearance of goods. The Tribunal found that the charge of sub-letting was not proven based on the activities and relationships involved.In conclusion, the Tribunal found no merit in the revocation order and allowed the appeal, setting aside the revocation of the CBL with immediate effect. The decision was pronounced on 9-4-2015.