TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (12) TMI 669
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....up to 16/10/2014 is liable for revocation under Regulation 18 of Customs Broker Licence Regulations, 2013 but since the licence had already expired in the interim, the revocation is not ordered. Further the Commissioner has forfeited the security deposit of the appellant and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- under Regulation 18 of the CBLR. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are holders of CHA Licence valid up to 16/10/2014. They filed a bill of Entry No.6405665 dt. 11/08/2014 in respect of Nitenpyrum, weighing 500 kgs., packed in 20 paper drums, valued at Rs. 10,38,539/- and Bill of Entry No.6439810 dt. 14/08/2014, in respect of Amitraz, weighing 1000 kgs., packed in 40 paper drums, valued at Rs. 7,34,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ustoms, Bangalore without granting any adjournment had passed the impugned order dt. 13/04/2015 itself and aggrieved by that order forfeiting the security furnished by the appellant in full and imposition of penalty of Rs. 50,000/-, the appellant has filed the appeal No.C/21534/2015. 3. Heard both sides and perused records. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order passed by the Commissioner is not sustainable in law as as the same has been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. He further submitted that on the second date of hearing itself, the Commissioner has passed the order whereas the appellant had sought adjournment for the day. He further submitted that the allegat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cuments have shown the description of the goods and accordingly the appellant has filed the classification on the basis of the invoice and other documents. He further submitted that the importer had obtained the No Objection Certificate from the Deputy Drugs Controller (India), Chennai for the goods imported vide subject invoices. The other allegation is that the appellant was aware of the correct address of the importer yet declared the incorrect address on the relevant Bill of Entry. In reply to this allegation, the learned counsel submitted that the appellant filed the Bill of Entry based on the IEC number and the address shown in the IEC appeared in the Bill of Entry and the appellant cannot change the address shown in the IEC code and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Vs. CC, New Delhi [2001(136) ELT 1042 (Tri. Del.)] ii. Falcon Air Cargo and Travels (P) Ltd. Vs. UOI [2002(140) ELT 8 (Del.)] iii. CC(Prev.), West Bengal Vs. Over Land Agency [2006(204) ELT 554 (Cal.)] iv. Thawerdas Wadhoomal Vs. CC(Gen.), Mumbai [2008(221) ELT 252 (Tri. Mum.)] 5. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order and submitted that the Commissioner of Customs has considered all the points raised by the appellant and has come to the conclusion that the appellant has not exercised the due diligence and he was aware of the material which was being imported and in spite of that he filed wrong classification of the imported goods. He further submitted that the first appeal challenging the suspension orde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the appellant who has limited role in filing the documents as per the advice of the importer. Further we find that the appellant has filed the No Objection Certificate and permission to import the impugned goods from the Deputy Drugs Controller, CDSCO, South Zone dt. 03/11/2014 which was filed before the Commissioner but the same was not considered. Further the decisions relied upon by the appellant clearly hold that in order to revoke the licence of the appellant, there has to be serious allegation against the Custom Broker which should be proved on record. Further we find that the Commissioner has observed that the appellant has not applied for renewal of the licence whereas the appellant has submitted that they have made application fo....