TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (6) TMI 1594
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e custom passes forthwith, if lying in their possession." 2.1 Appellants herein are Custom Brokers having license No 11/755 and were operating in terms of Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013 (erstwhile Custom House Licensing Regulations, 1984). They had filed a Bill of Entry No 8060973 dated 27th September 2012. After investigations undertaken in respect of the goods covered by the said Bill of Entry, it was found that the said goods have been grossly misdeclared in terms of value, quantity and description. Even the importer on record was found to be a college going student in whose name IEC had been obtained and was being used by the alleged operators in the import business. 2.2 Charges against the appellant for revoking their license is that • He allowed his license to be misused contrary to prohibitions imposed on sale or transfer of license; • He did not obtain any authorization from the company, firm or individual employing them; • He failed to advise the client to comply with the provisions of law; • Failed to exercise due diligence in ascertaining the correctness of information imparted to the client; â....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me schedule. These reasons can then be tested to derive a conclusion whether the deviation from the time line prescribed in the Regulation, is "reasonable". This is the only way by which the provisions contained in Regulation 20 can be effectively implemented in the interest of both parties, namely, the Revenue and the Customs House Agent. 16. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the appeals filed by the Revenue succeed and the question of law framed in the appeals is answered by holding that the CESTAT was not justified in setting aside the order or suspension of Customs Broker License on the ground of delay between suspension and the notice of deviation or omission and it cannot e laid down as an absolute preposition of law that delay in taking immediate action of suspension or initiation of inquiry within a period of 90 days would vitiate the action of the Commissioner. The matters are remanded to CESTAT for fresh adjudication in light of the question of law answered in the present appeals." 2.4 In view of the above referred order of The Hon'ble High Court matter has been listed for consideration and disposal. 3.1 We have heard Shri J C Patel along with Ms. S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....heir favour. Shri Kusheaha had provided the Appellant KYC documents etc. • No evidence has been placed on record that they or their employee were aware of the misdeclaration. • The punishment of revocation of license is an extremely harsh measure and not justified in the facts of the present case. Suspension of license since 12.07.2013 itself is sufficient punishment. [Ashiana Cargo Services [2014 (302) ELT 161 (Del)] • The impugned order revoking the license should be set aside. 3.3 Arguing for the revenue learned authorized representative submitted that- • Appellant had subletted the license as has been held by the Commissioner while recording the finding as follows in his order- "In the instant case, the relevant factor while deciding whether the charge of subletting is proved or not is the payment of money for use of the license by the user. Both Shri Mehul Sanghavi and Sanjay Mishra have admitted that CB firm was getting commission from (or was paid by) Durga Shipping Co. If Shri Sanjay Mishra was bringing the clients then he should have got extra payment from CB firm for bringing business. However, here what was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... b CHALR, 2004 (now CBLR, 2013). 4.1 We have considered the impugned order along with the submissions made in appeal and during the course of arguments. 4.2 The first issue that needs to be considered is whether the delay in conducting the enquiry proceedings and revocation of license of Appellant has been explained/ justified by the adjudicating authority as has been mandated by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay while remanding the matter back to the CESTAT. The date chart submitted by the appellants detailing the conduct of proceedings is detailed below: Date Activity 01.07.2013 Offence report received by the Commissioner 09.10.2013 Notice was issued by the Commissioner for revoking the license 30.10.2013 They filed the defence and sought personal hearing 09.12.2013 Letter of preliminary hearing issued by inquiry officer. 13.12.2013 There advocate appeared for preliminary hearing and denied all the charges. Next hearing date fixed on 16.01.2014 16.12.2013 They submitted the list of witnesses through their advocate 16.01.2014 Examination and cross examination of Shri Sanjay Mishra. 22.01.2014 Requested Commissioner to revo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... calling the Shri Sanghawi for examination is not coming forth? Commissioner has himself in para 27 of the order recorded that "department has time and again pursued the matter with the inquiry officer to complete the inquiry proceedings in a time bound manner vide letters dated 27.11.2013, 26.12.2013, 03.02.2014, 24.02.2014, 21.05.2014, 27.06.2014, 09.07.2014, 23.07.2014, 25.08.2014, 13.10.2014 and 28.11.2014. ..." In our view the justification as referred by the Bombay High Court while remanding the matter back is not coming forth in the case. 4.3 On the merits of the case also we do not find any justifiable reason being put forth to hold that Shri Sanjay Mishra was not the employee of the appellant. In the examination done before the enquiry officer, Shri Sanjay Mishra has specifically deposed that he is G Card holder given to him by Customs after conducting CHA examination as a permanent employee of a Custom Broker. He is thus authorized to meet the client and customs authorities and for signing the documents for clearance of goods. Commissioner has not even rebutted the claim made but has observed in para 29, "In this regards, I find that Shri Mehul H Sanghavi, partner of C....