TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (3) TMI 1101
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....esent Show Cause Notice No. 2584 dated 31/05/2018, was served upon the appellants when they applied for renewal of their CBLR licence-1/CHLR 2013 vide letter dated 21/03/2018 proposing the rejection thereof. The said proposal has been confirmed vide the order under challenge i.e. one bearing No. 11 dated 11/06/2018, being aggrieved the appellant is before this Tribunal. 2. We have heard Mr. B K Garg, learned representative of the appellant and Mr. Rakesh Kumar learned DR for Revenue. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that in the proceedings/adjudication under Customs Act, no penalty was imposed upon the appellant, in fact, it was held that no fraudulent act was observed to had been committed by the CHA in exporting the prohibiting red sanders. It is impressed upon that once there was no penalty, the Adjudicating Authority has committed an error while still rejecting the renewal of the CHA license. In addition, it is submitted that the application for renewal was filed in March, 2018, i.e. when the CBLR 2013 was in existence but still the show Cause Notice was served and even the order under challenge has been announced under the new Regulations i.e. CBLR 2018 Sect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....month time limit is inclusive of any other noticed conduct for the Principal Commissioner or the Commissioner of Customs to arrive at a satisfaction while renewing the licence. Since the order of imposing penalty was sufficient reason with the that said competent authority order under challenge has no infirmity. The appeal is accordingly prayed to be dismissed. Learned DR has also brought to the notice a Final Order No. 52655/2018 in Customs Appeal No C/51496/2018-DB decided on 31.07.2018 against the CHA. 5. After hearing both the parties, we observe that it is an admitted case that shipping bill of M/s Bhavya Export was dealt with by the present appellant as the customs broker, the requisite Show Cause Notices had already been issued. It is also an admission that the penalty of Rs. Twenty Five Thousand has been imposed upon the appellant vide an order passed under CBLR 2013 i.e. under the Act which permits the same CHA to apply for renewal. Perusal of the said order shows that after imposing the penalty, it is the revocation of the CHA licence that has been set aside. However, the order is clear to recite that there was the lapse on the part of the CHA though it being the first....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the CHA the punishment listed in the Regulations." It was also held by Hon'ble Supreme Court; "7.The Order dated 02.02.2016 has observed that there has been negligence on part of the custom broker in conducting KYC of the EIC holder and he has failed to verify the functioning at the given address of the importer. Thereby, the contravention of Regulation (n) of CBLR read with Circular No. 9 of 2010-Cus is held to have been proved. The mensrea in respect of all the allegations as stated in the Show Cause Notice dated 01.06.2018 is held to have been established beyond doubt. However, the suspension was revoked keeping in view that the same has completely halted the business of the appellant all over India for almost an year and has thrown out of gear his operation as well as the families of his employees, especially in a condition where still time of validation of his license is there. From the said findings, we opine that it stands clear on record that the appellant has failed to observe obligation (d), (e), and (f) of Regulation 14 of CBLR." 7. In the present case the appellant had applied for renewal of his licence after the expiry of ten years of the licence as was gran....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Regulations the same is a definite basis for the competent authority to arrive at a satisfaction for the application to be entitled for renewal of CHA licence. The above noticed violation on the part of the appellant and the imposed penalty upon him, to our opinion, is sufficient for the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner of Customs, whom the application for renewal of licence was made, to reject the same. 8. Now, coming to the arguments of the appellant that the Adjudicating Authority has wrongly relied upon the condition (f) and (g) on CBLR 2018 while rejecting the application, we are of the opinion that Proviso 2 Rule 9 of CBLR 2018 mentions that renewal procedure of the license CHA shall be in accordance with the procedure specified in sub Regulation 2 thereof. Perusal of said sub Regulation 2, as reproduced above, makes it clear that there is no specific procedure of the application except that while granting the license the competent authority has to be satisfied about the performance of the CHA during the period of his previous license for properly observing the obligations specified in this Regulations. Thus, irrespective of Regulation 9 being silent about the appli....