TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Custom Broker License Suspension Overturned Due to Procedural Flaws</h1> <h3>M/s. Krishna Shipping And Allied Services Versus C. C-Kandla</h3> M/s. Krishna Shipping And Allied Services Versus C. C-Kandla - TMI Issues Involved:1. Suspension of Custom Broker Licence.2. Jurisdiction and applicability of CBLR, 2018.3. Timeliness and procedural adherence.4. Responsibility for employee actions.5. Impact of Board Circulars and legal precedents.Summary:1. Suspension of Custom Broker Licence:The appellant, a partnership firm holding a Custom Broker Licence, faced immediate suspension of their licence by the Commissioner of Customs, Kandla, based on an Offence Report from the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Ludhiana. The report alleged that the appellant's partner, Shri Pankaj Thakkar, was involved in fraudulent activities related to the clearance of imported black pepper from Kandla Special Economic Zone (KASEZ) into the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) at a NIL rate of duty by falsely claiming the goods were of Afghan origin.2. Jurisdiction and Applicability of CBLR, 2018:The appellant argued that they were never appointed as a Custom Broker by M/s Aditya Exports or their DTA buyers and thus had no role in the transactions under scrutiny. They contended that the suspension order was beyond the scope of Regulation 17(9) of CBLR, 2013, and Regulation 13(12) of CBLR, 2018, as the alleged acts were not in the course of their Custom Broker business. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner had erred in invoking Regulation 17(9) of CBLR, 2013, which had ceased to exist, and should have considered Regulation 13(12) of CBLR, 2018.3. Timeliness and Procedural Adherence:The appellant highlighted that the suspension order was issued after a delay, violating the timelines prescribed by Board Circular No. 9/2010-Cus, dated 8.4.2010. The Tribunal observed that the last statement in the matter was recorded on 28.04.2023, but the report was sent by DRI on 07.07.2023, beyond the 30-day period. The suspension order was passed on 28.07.2023, after the 15-day limit post-receipt of the offence report, making the suspension procedurally flawed.4. Responsibility for Employee Actions:The appellant asserted that Shri Pankaj Thakkar's actions were in his private capacity and not as part of the Custom Broker business. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner had not established that the alleged acts were in the course of the appellant's Custom Broker business. The Tribunal also referenced previous judgments indicating that a Custom Broker cannot be held responsible for the private conduct of their employees.5. Impact of Board Circulars and Legal Precedents:The Tribunal emphasized the binding nature of Board Circulars on revenue authorities, citing several judgments that upheld the mandatory nature of timelines prescribed in such circulars. The Tribunal concluded that the breach of these timelines rendered the suspension invalid.Conclusion:The Tribunal found that the suspension of the Custom Broker Licence was procedurally flawed due to the breach of mandatory timelines and lack of jurisdiction under the correct regulations. The suspension was revoked, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
