TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (11) TMI 621
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent of the importer M/s. M and I Company. The said Mr. Alexander handed over the necessary authorization and KYC documents of the importer to the appellant and the appellant carried out verification as required and attended customs clearance activities of the importer. The imported goods were cleared from the Customs and handed over to the said Mr. Alexander. Later on, DRI Chennai conducted city seizure on 29/12/2017 and seized gold concealed in vehicle AC compressors pertaining to the importer M/s. M and I Company. Thereafter investigation was conducted by the DRI which revealed that one Mr. N. Francis of Chennai with his contacts in Malaysia got the intercepted vehicle AC compressors in which gold was concealed. His brother Mr. N. Prabhu Doss and his relative Mr. D. Velkumar, both residents of Chennai were the accomplices. Later on statement of Shri N. Francis under Section 108 of the Customs Act was recorded and gold weighing 10.459 kgs. valuated at Rs. 3,07,28,542/- was seized and proceedings were initiated under COFEPOSA. DRI, Bengaluru searched the premises of the appellant and found no incriminating documents resulting in NIL mahazar and statement of Shri V. Devadas, Senior ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orter and the appellant presumed that authorization and documents given by him to the appellant were in fact from the importer. He further submitted that once the Inquiry officer has exonerated the appellant under Regulation 10(e) and Regulation 10(n), the effect of the same would be that the appellant has been authorized properly by the employee of the importer by handing over the required document which were verified by the appellant before undertaking the clearance work. He further submitted that when the allegation under Regulation 10(e) and Regulation 10(n) failed to sustain, it natural corollary that Regulation 10(a) and 10(d) are also complied with. He further submitted that the impugned order failed to bring out as to what should have been advised by the appellant to the importer but was not advised under Regulation 10(d). He further submitted that the Commissioner has merely resorted to Regulation 10(d) without pointing out as to the lapse on the part of the appellant. further the adjudicating authority in the impugned order has, on presumption and assumption, concluded that the regulations contemplated a general advice and not a specific advice. He further submitted that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is own statement which remained unrebutted till today shows that the appellant has been properly authorized by Mr. Alexander Nathan by handing over the necessary authorization and KYC documents which were properly verified by the appellant. Further in view of the various decisions relied upon by the appellant, it is not necessary that the Customs Broker should personally verify the premises of the importer. Once the Customs Broker has been approached by the employee of the importer and he has verified the necessary documents, then there cannot be any allegation of violations against the CHA. Further the impugned order says that the appellant has not advised the importer without specifying as to what advice was required to be given by the appellant and the same was not given by the appellant to the importer. Further we find that in the case of HIM Logistics Pvt. Ltd. cited supra, the Division Bench of this Tribunal in para 9 and 10 has held as under:- 9.We find that the impugned order did not make out a sustainable case for revocation of licence. In the case of Setwin Shipping Agency v. CC (General), Mumbai - 2010 (250) E.L.T. 141 (Tri.-Mumbai), the Tribunal held that there....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ve adequate, if any weight, to this crucial factor. There is no finding of any mala fide on the part of the appellant, such that the trust operating between a CHA and the Customs Authorities (as a matter of law, and of fact) can be said to have been violated, or be irretrievably lost for the future operation of the license. In effect, thus, the proportionality doctrine has escaped the analysis. 12.Learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Customs has stressed that the infraction in this case is not a routine matter, but rather, illegal smuggling of narcotics by the G card users. However, given the factual finding that the CHA was not aware of the misuse of the G cards (and thus, also unaware of the contents being smuggled), no additional blame can be heaped upon the CHA on that count alone. Rather, the only proved infraction on record is of the issuance of G cards to non-employees, as opposed to the active facilitation of any infraction, or any other violation of the CHA Regulations, whether gross or otherwise. Neither have any such allegations been raised as to the past conduct of the appellant, from the time the license was granted in January, 1996. Equally, it is importan....