TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (11) TMI 1133
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i A. Madhu Singh and Shri Aftab Alam by using the customs broker company's name of the appellant and M/s. Unique Line, Chennai. It also came to light that Shri A. Sathish had paid monetary benefits to the actual Customs Broker company owners / partners for allowing him to use their Customs Broker company name and login id. Shri A. Sathish had used the license as well as login id of the 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be revoked, security deposit should not be forfeited and why penalty should not be imposed. After due process of law, the original authority ordered revocation of license and forfeiture of security deposit of Rs. 25,000/-. A penalty of Rs. 50,000/- was also imposed. Aggrieved by such order, the appellant is now before the Tribunal. 3. The ld. Counsel Shri S. Bhaskaran appeared and argued on behalf of the appellant. He submitted that the main allegations leveled in the Show Cause Notice against the appellant are as under:- (i) Regulation 10(d) of CBLR 2018 read with Regulation 11(d) of CBLR, 2013 has been infringed inasmuch as they had failed to advise their clients to comply with the provisions of the Act as they do not know the said IE....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....escribed 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 erring brokers but also contemplates timely action, but such action has to be initiated against the erring brokers ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....A No. 730 of 2016 dated 13.10.2017 (b) Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin Vs. MKS Shipping Agencies - 2017 (348) ELT 640 (Mad.) (c) Commissioner of Customs Vs. M/s. A.M. Ahmed & Co. in W.A. No. 371 of 2015 dated 2.7.2015 (d) Impexnet Logistic Vs. Commissioner of Customs - 2016 (338) ELT 347 (Del.) 7. On merits, the ld. counsel submitted that there is no averment in the Show Cause Notice that appellant was involved in mis-declaration of goods. The case against importer is that the importer had not declared goods in the nature of mobile phones, accessories, which are restricted. There is no iota of evidence furnished by the department to prove that appellant had knowledge of the contents in the container. As a Customs broker the appel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e as well as the login id to facilitate the illegal imports. They are also guilty of attempting to remove the goods without filing Bill of Entry and without knowledge of Customs. Such access was given by the appellant to Shri A. Sathish by which the high valued BIS / IPR violated and other undeclared goods were imported. If the appellant had obtained KYC documents and also verified the antecedents of the importer M/s. Sri Sai Enterprises, the illegal imports would not have happened. Shri G. Nathavel who is the partner of the appellant company has admitted that the mistake is on their part as Customs Broker for not complying with the Regulations of CBLR, 2018. By such acts of the appellant, they have facilitated Shri A. Madhu Singh of M/s. P....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 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 t....