TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (6) TMI 1594
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....session." 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; * Failed to verify antecedent, correctness of the IEC, identity and veracity of the importer and the ad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on, 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. Shamita Patel, Advocates for the Appellant and Shri Ramesh Kumar Assistant Commissioner, Authorized Representative for the Revenue. 3.2 Arguing for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation 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 actually going on was the opposite that the company (and the employee) who was bringing business was actually paying the CB firm. I find that Shri Sanjay Mishra does not have his own license and has therefore hit upon this modus operandi of bringing busin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 revoke suspension as period of 90 days for completion of enquiry from the date of notice had expired. 29.01.2014 They with their advocate appeared for hearing which for administrative reasons postponed to 31.01.2014 31.01.2014 Examination and cross examination of Shri Vishnu Kumar Kushwaha. 11.02.2014 Examination and cross examination of Shri Mohammad Sibtain Abdul ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 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 CB in his statements recorded on 2.11.2012 and 5.11.2012 has admitted that Shri Sanjay Mishra is his employee who is getting the clearance work for his company through his own (i.e. Shri Sanjay Mishra's company Durga Shipping Co., that M/s Mehul and Co is paid by M/s Durga Shipping Co, for their services. They do not charge importers directly. Shri Sanjay Mishra, CB firms G card holder employee and owner of M/s Durga Shi....