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>Customs broker licence revocation overturned due to unsubstantiated charges and misinterpretation of regulation 10 provisions</h1> <h3>Sarajdeep Logistics Pvt Ltd Versus Principal Commissioner of Customs (General) New Custom House, Ballard Estate Mumbai</h3> CESTAT Mumbai set aside the revocation of customs broker licence and forfeiture of security deposit imposed for alleged breach of Customs Brokers ... Revocation of customs broker licence - forfeiture of security deposit- imposition of penalty - import of ‘assorted goods’ from China, not conforming with the quality control order for import - breach of regulation 10(b), 10(d), 10(m), 10(n) and 13(12) of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 - HELD THAT:- Regulation 10(d) of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 requires that a customs broker shall advice his client to comply with the provisions of statute which, once again, rests upon statement of the same Robert S Chettiar and suffering from infirmity stems from placing sole reliance on statements which are inadmissible. The finding thereon must be similarly invalidated. The charge of failure to discharge duties as customs broker without delay and with speed has been held as proved from alleged failure of the customs broker to seek clarifications as well as ensuring compliance of rules and regulations by the importer, a more incorrect construing of this provision is not manifest. The consequence of breach of this obligation is the suffering that an importer/exporter would be put to and the erroneous inference by the licensing authority that every obligation in regulation 10 of Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018 is intended for the licensee to be surrogate of the licencing authority for education of the client cannot be the basis for sustaining the charge. It is the licensing authority who had appointed licensee under section 146 of Customs Act, 1962 owing to which importers/exporters are assured that, in engaging a broker, their interests are not prejudiced and, upon any violation of Customs Act, 1962 arising from incorrect advise that is set out by the client, this provision may be invoked by the licencing authority in penal proceedings. The invoking of this provision, therefore, may be triggered only upon such being elicited in the course of investigations. There is nothing on record to evidence such complaint and, consequently, this charge has no basis on fact or law. Insofar regulation 10(n) of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 is concerned, the finding on stipulation that the particulars of the client by ascertained besides verification of the address thereof, the finding therein, on the basis of which the charge has been held to be proved, are devoid of specifics of the incident in which the said regulation has been breached. That lack on facts is fatal to the confirmation of the charge. The impugned order set aside - appeal allowed. Issues:Revocation of customs broker license, forfeiture of security deposit, imposition of penalty under Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018.Analysis:The judgment pertains to an appeal by M/s Sarajdeep Logistics Pvt Ltd against the revocation of their customs broker license, forfeiture of security deposit, and imposition of a penalty under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018. The proceedings were initiated based on an offense report following the examination of goods imported from China, which were found to be contrary to the Foreign Trade Policy and quality control orders. The appellant was alleged to have breached several regulations, including 10(b), 10(d), 10(m), 10(n), and 13(2) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018.The licensing authority disagreed with the findings of the enquiry proceedings and issued a notice of intention to conclude proceedings for breach of all alleged regulations. The appellant challenged the findings, arguing that they were not in accordance with the regulations. The appellant contended that the reliance on statements recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, was not valid, citing precedents from the Tribunal and High Courts.The judgment highlights specific breaches of regulations by the appellant, such as failure to transact business personally or through an authorized employee, failure to advise the client on compliance, and failure to discharge duties with speed and efficiency. The judgment also addresses the requirement to verify the correctness of client particulars and address, which was found to be violated in this case.The judgment further discusses the findings related to the breach of regulations and the lack of specific incidents to support these findings. Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, emphasizing the lack of factual support for the charges brought against the appellant.In conclusion, the judgment provides a detailed analysis of the breaches of regulations by the appellant and the legal arguments presented in the appeal. The decision to set aside the order and allow the appeal was based on the lack of specific evidence supporting the charges and the failure to meet the legal requirements for proving the alleged breaches.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
