TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (8) TMI 729
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on into these imports on the intelligence that these importers were misdeclaring the country of origin of the imported PVC Flex banners as Malaysia instead of China for evading anti-dumping duty. The Government had imposed anti-dumping duty on PVC flex banners imported from China. The petitioner was summoned and his statement was recorded by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Chennai and it was alleged that the petitioner was involved evasion of duty by the various importers. Consequently, by order, dated 18.11.2013, the first respondent suspended the licence of the petitioner by invoking Regulation 19(1) of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013 (in short, CBLR, 2013). Thereafter, after providing a personal hearing to the petitioner on 28.11.2013, the first respondent passed order, dated 12.12.2013, ordering continuation of suspension of the licence of the petitioner under Regulation 19(2) of CBLR, 2013 and also issued a show cause notice dated 12.12.2013 proposing to revoke the licence of the petitioner under the provisions of Regulation 18 of CBLR, 2013. 2. Challenging the order of suspension of the licence was continued, dated 12.12.2013, the petitioner has filed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....regard to customs including duty payments; that the customs broker did not forward the consignments to the addresses of the said IEC holders and facilitated movement of the said goods to godowns indicated by Shri Sailesh Jain, thereby facilitated the perpetrators in the said customs fraud; that the customs broker received the charges towards customs clearance of the said consignments from Shri Sailesh Jain in cash and not from the IEC holders; and that the customs broker never brought this illegal activity to the knowledge of customs and actively colluded with Shri Sailesh Jain in the conspiracy. 4. Hence, it was found that there had been lapses on the part of the Customs Broker M/s. DVR Freight Forwarders Pvt. Ltd. In as much as;- a. The Customs Broker contravened the provisions of Regulation 11(a) of the CBLR, 2013 in as much as he willfully and deliberately aided and abetted Shri Sailesh Jain in import of PVC flex banners by misusing the ICEs of other individuals; b. The Customs Broker was aware that the said goods were being imported by Shri Sailesh Jain misusing the ICEs of different companies / firms, but he did not bring it to the knowledge of Deputy Commissioner of Custo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l the obligations cast upon him under Regulation 11(a), 11(d) and 11(n) of the CBLR, 2013 and committed professional mis-conduct while acting as a Customs Broker, as alleged in the suspension order dated 18.11.2013. Personal hearing was granted on 28.12.2013 which was attended by the counsel for the Customs Broker. The Suspension was continued vide order in original No.22943/2013 dated 12.12.2013. 6. A show cause notice dated 12.12.2013 was issued to the Customs Broker M/s. DVR Freight Forwarders Pvt. Ltd calling upon to show cause, as to why the licence issued to them should not be revoked and security deposited by them should not be forfeited or penalty should not be imposed upon them under Regulation 18 of the CBLR, 2013, for their failure to comply with the provisions of CBLR, 2013. An inquiry officer in the rank of Deputy Commissioner, has also been appointed to conduct inquiry into the case under Regulation 20 of the CBLR, 2013. The Customs Broker M/s. DVR Freight Forwarders Pvt Ltd., Chennai approached the Hon ble High Court and filed writ petition praying for issuance of writ of certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order in original No.22943/2013 d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ies and had he informed, the illegal imports of Flex sheets of Chinese origin through Malaysia made by said Sailesh Jain of M/s.J.K.Enterprises evading legitimate customs duty including anti-dumping duty would have been detected earlier. Hence the charge of not informing the department of the issue of hiring of IEC stands proved and thereby, the petitioner violated the provisions of Regulation 11(d) of the Act and that Shri R.Saravana Kumar has admitted to have received an amount of Rs. 15,000/- per container from Sh.Sailesh for import of the PVC flex sheet and that he has also signed the letter dated 20.12.2012 and 7.2.2013 addressed to M/s.Perma Shipping Line (India) Pvt.LAtd., in the letter head of M/s.Sri Jayalakshmi Enterprises as proprietor of M/s.Sri Jayalakshmi Enterprises, which amounts to professional misconduct and breach of trust reposted by the department on the customs brother, and thus, charge of violation of Regulation 18(c) stands proved. The customs broker has not produced before the DRI the authorization said to have been obtained from all the imports at the time of investigation and therefore, as evidence in the investigation report and from the statement of R.S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ry period of 90 days and on this ground, the impugned proceedings get vitiated. With these contentions, the learned counsel sought for setting aside the impugned proceedings. 11. At the outset, it is to be noted that after issuance of the show cause notice, dated 12.12.2013 to the petitioner, for which, the petitioner had submitted their reply on 10.1.2014. Thereafter, the petitioner participated in the enquiry and on completion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer filed his report on 24.7.2014, for which, the petitioner was given opportunity to file their reply and on 26.8.2014, the petitioner has filed the report. After considering the reply, the first respondent has passed the impugned order revoking the license of the petitioner. Therefore, having made replies to the show cause notice and to the report of the Enquiry Officer and having participated in the enquiry, it is not appropriate for the petitioner to raise objections regarding the show cause notice that too after the impugned order was passed and in fact, the show cause notice got merged with the impugned order. 12. Though the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner raised many contentions (cited supra) to attack t....