2019 (1) TMI 573

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ntelligence, the Mumbai Customs detected a case of undeclared goods of high value concealed in declared goods by an importer vide Bill-of-Entry No. 5656910 dated 16.06.2016 which had been filed through the appellant herein. A Prohibition Order No. 32/2016 dated 15.12.2016 was issued by the Principal Commissioner of Customs (Gen.), Mumbai, against the appellant and post-prohibition hearing was offered to the appellant on 30.11.2016, after which a Show Cause Notice dated 22.02.2017 was issued proposing revocation of the Customs Broker's licence, forfeiture of the security amount deposited by them and imposition of penalty under Regulation 18 read with Regulation 20 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2013. The appellants were....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e matter came up for hearing, Ld. Advocate Shri. C. Ramkumar appearing on behalf of the appellant made oral and written submissions which can be broadly summarized as under : (i) Timeline of the proceedings as submitted by the Ld. Advocate is as under : Date Description of events Remarks 16.06.2016 B/E No.: 5656910 Examination completed on 19.07.2016 23.11.2016 O-in-O No. 482/2016-17/ADC/NS-V/JNCH issued taking action under Customs Act by Mumbai Customs Copy not marked to Customs Chennai 15.12.2016 Prohibition Order No. 32/2016 issued by Mumbai Customs Copy marked to Chennai Customs 22.02.2017 SCN F. No. R-311/CHA issued by Chennai Customs under CBLR, 2013 Within time limit 20(1) of CBLR, 2013....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....HC-DEL-CUS; 4. On the other hand, Ld. AR Shri. K. Veerabhadra Reddy appearing on behalf of the respondent supports the impugned Order. He submits that while the adjudicating authority has concluded that the appellant has failed to fulfil the obligations laid down under Regulations 11(d) and 11(n) of the CBLR, 2013, however, taking note of the case laws on the issue, the adjudicating authority has not awarded the extreme punishment of revocation of licence or forfeiture of security deposit and only a small penalty of Rs. 30,000/- has been imposed. Ld. AR submits that there is no scope for any further reduction in the said penalty. 5. Heard both sides and have gone through the facts of the case. 6. The starting point of the proceedin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....om House to monitor compliance of these mandatory time-limits. 8. We do note that in the present case, the ninety-day period prescribed for submission of the report by the Inquiry Officer has indeed been exceeded, possibly because of the first appointed Inquiry Officer going on medical leave for forty five days, necessitating the appointment of a second Inquiry Officer. Nonetheless, when the prescribed periods are to be considered as mandatory, the concerned Custom House/Commissioner, in such an eventuality, should have immediately taken corrective action and possibly not waited so long for appointment of another Inquiry Officer. 9. Be that as it may be, the moot point is that the ninety-day limit prescribed in Regulation 20(5) ibid h....