2019 (11) TMI 1133

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....appellant so that A. Madhu Singh and Aftab Alam, against whom investigations were initiated were able to illegally import goods. Consequently, proceedings were initiated against the appellant for violation of Customs Broker Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2018 r/w CBLR, 2013. 2. It is the case of the department that the appellant acted as Customs broker for M/s. Sri Sai Enterprises by giving access to their company's name and login id to Shri A. Sathish of M/s. Sai Impex for monetary consideration and to move the import container in which high valued BIS, IPR violated and other high valued goods were attempted to be removed without filing Bill of Entry and without the knowledge of Customs. Such access given by appellant to Shri A. Sathish also enabled Shri A. Sathish to file the Bill of Entry dated 3.5.2017 by which high valued BIS violated and other undeclared goods were imported. The appellant had not obtained KYC documents and had not verified the antecedents of the importer M/s. Sri Sai Enterprises. They had not verified the identity and functioning of the client also. Shri G. Nathavel, partner of appellant-company had never met the actual IEC holder Smt. Usha Rani of M/....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....been prescribed for conducting the proceedings for revocation of license. Regulation 17(1) of CBLR states that the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner of Customs shall issue a notice in writing to the Customs Broker within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of offence report. In the present case, the offence report is dated 11.6.2018. The Show Cause Notice then ought to have been issued within 90 days from the date of the offence report. However, the Show Cause Notice has been issued only on 14.9.2018 which is beyond the time limit prescribed by the Regulation. Again, as per Circular No. 9/2010 dated 8.4.2010, the proceedings for revocation ought to have been completed within nine months from the date of receipt of offence report. Thus, the proceedings for revocation ought to have been completed on or before 10.3.2019. However, the proceedings have been completed by the department and order of revocation has been passed only on 23.5.2019 beyond the time limit stipulated in Circular 9/2010. Further, there is a delay in giving the inquiry report and the same was given only on 21.2.2019 5. No doubt, the Regulations do not only contemplate action against the errin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ellant can only declare the goods as informed by importer and the same were mentioned in the Bill of Entry. The allegation that appellant has violated the Regulations under CBLR 2018 is without any basis. Further, appellant has obtained KYC documents from the IEC holder. The IEC is in the name of Smt.Usha Rani. Shri A. Sathish is the son-in-law of Smt.Usha Rani. The department does not have a case that Smt. Usha Rani does not have an IEC issued in her name or that the address and other details given is incorrect. As far as possible, the appellant has verified the antecedents of the importer / IEC holder. Merely because the importer had not declared certain goods which were not within the knowledge of the appellant, the grave punishment of revocation of license cannot be imposed on the appellant. The allegation that the appellant had allowed Shri A. Sathish to use the login id as well as the license of the appellant etc. is false and made to suit the case of department. None of the allegations raised in the Show Cause Notice has been established and therefore revocation of license, forfeiture of security deposit or the penalty imposed cannot sustain. He relied upon the decision in A....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... be submitted within a period of 90 days from the date of issuance of the Show Cause Notice under sub-Regulation (1). In the present case, the Show Cause Notice was issued on 14.9.2018 and the inquiry report was submitted only on 21.2.2019 which is beyond 90 days prescribed in sub-regulation (5). 11. The Hon'ble High Court in the case of Santon Shipping Services (supra) vide judgment dated 13.10.2017 had occasion to consider whether the time-limit prescribed in the Regulation for proceedings of revocation of license is mandatory or directory. It was held that non-compliance of the time limit prescribed in the Regulation is fatal and the order of revocation of license passed without complying with the time limit cannot sustain. Similar view was taken in the MKS Shipping Agencies (supra) as well as other decisions relied by the ld. counsel. Following these decisions, we are of the considered opinion that the order passed by the Commissioner revoking the license without complying the statutory time limit is against law and cannot sustain. 12. The ld. counsel has argued on merits also. The violations alleged in the Show Cause Notice have been narrated in the parag....