TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (6) TMI 15
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed by the CB, under Regulation 14 of the CBLR, 2018. (iii) I revoke the CB Licence No. 11/1830 under Regulation 14 of CBLR, 2018. (iv) I hereby order that the CB surrender the original Licence as well as all the 'F', 'G' & 'H' cards issued there under immediately. 2. This order is passed without prejudice to any other action which may be taken against the Customs Broker and their employees under the Customs Act, 1962, or any other act for the time being in force in the Union of India." 2.1 On the basis of specific intelligence, Officers of Preventive Section, Customs (Prev.), HQ, Jamnagar seized consignments of Wall paper and similar wall covering consisting of paper coated or covered on the face side, Wall paper grained embossed coloured falling under CTH 48142000 lying at Container Freight Station of M/s. Contrans Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Pipavav in respect of exporters i.e. M/s. Vicky Sales and M/s. Jagdambe Export, Delhi, for the reason of them being overvalued. 2.2 Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Jamnagar vide letter dated 10.07.2019 proposed to initiate action against Customs Broker M/s SSS Sai Forwarders Pvt. Ltd. for violation of CBLR, 2018....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....missions made in appeal and during the course of arguments. 4.2 A case was taken up for investigation by the Jamnagar Customs in respect of overvaluation of goods exported. Exporters used to take CGST/SGST credit on the inflated invoices issued by their supplier and subsequently, these goods were cleared for export on payment of IGST from their accumulated IGST credit account and claimed refund of the same. On examination during investigation it was found that quality and condition of goods was not corresponding to the FOB value declared in the Shipping Bills. The FOB value declared in the Shipping Bills was overvalued and the same was in contravention of provisions of Customs Act, 1962. The proceedings for revocation of the CB license in the present case have its foundation in this case. Interestingly after completion of investigation of the case, the CB, whose license has been revoked has not been made noticee in the Show Cause Notice issued by the Jamnagar Customs. 4.3 It is also interesting to note few paragraphs from the Show Cause Notice issued by the Jamnagar Customs: "2. Whereas it appears that M/s. Vicky Sales, Shop No. 2, Ground Floor, Plot No: 5,Block - A,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at Pipavav Port Limited, Pipavav, to export of "WALL PAPER AND SIMILAR WALL COVERINGS, CONSISTING OF PAPER COATED OR COVERED ON THE FACE SIDE, WITH A GRAINED EMBOSSED, COLOURED, DESIGN, PRINTED OR OTHERWISE DECORATED LAYERS OF PLASTICS to M/s. Hakeemsons General Trading LLC, Post Box No: 45762, Dubai, United Arab Emirates by classifying the same under Customs Tariff Heading No. 4814 20 00. Sl No Shipping Bill Invoice Number & Date C&F Value of goods (In USD) DECLARED F.O.B. (In INR) IGST involved (In INR) Number Date 1 4339935 22- 05- 19 JE/EXP/ 2019- 20/ 001 dated 03-05-19 2,05,200/- 1,42,43,677.50 25,67,052/- 2 434006 22- 05- 19 JE/EXP/ 2019- 20/ 002 dated 03-05-19 2,05,200/- 1,42,43,677.50 25,67,052/= 3 4395073 24- 05- 19 JE/EXP/ 2019- 20/ 003 dated 03-05-19 2,05,200/- 1,42,43,677.50 25,67,052/- 4 4395193 24- 05- 19 JE/EXP/ 2019- 20/ 004 dated 03-05-19 2,05,200/- 1,42,43,677.50 25,67,052/= Total ---------→ 8,20,800/- 5,69,74,710.00 1,02,68,208/ - (Sl. No. 17 to 32of Annexure "A" of Sho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g the goods @ USD 2 Per Square Feet i.e. Rs. 139/- per Square feet whereas their purchase price was Rs. 165/- per square feet from M/s. Sunlight Export and Rs. 134/- per square feet from M/s. ESS TEE Sales and M/s. Hargun Exports. It was also a fact that on that date the suppliers had not filed any GST returns. Thus it leads to suspicion that no prudent businessmen would sell the goods by incurring losses. 10. Due to above abnormalities, vigil was kept and it was noticed that one Shri Iqbal Satarbhai Shekda was involved in clearance of the goods covered under Shipping Bills, appearing at Para No. 2 & 3, filed by M/s. Vicky Sales and M/s. Jagdambe Exports. 11.1 Whereas, it appears that statement of Shri Iqbal Satarbhat Shekda, "H" card holder of M/s. Premji Kanji Masani Private Limited, was recorded on 30-05-2019 (Sl. No. 88 of Annexure "A" of Show. Cause Notice), under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, before the Superintendent of Customs House, Gujarat Pipavav Port Limited, Pipavay wherein he inter-alia stated that his firm had filed various shipping bills, during the period from March, 2019 to May, 2019, on behalf of M/s. Shiv International, M/s. Vicky Sales....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rked as forwarder from Rajula, Mundra and Mumbai and have worked with (1) M/s. Rishad Shipping & Clearing Agency Private Limited at Mundra Port, (2) M/s. Premji Kanji Masani Private Limited and M/s. SSS Sai Forwarders Private Limited at Pipavav Port and (3) M/s. CBN Impex Private Limited and M/8. Sainath Clearing Agency, owned by his cousin Shri Dinesh Mehta, at JNPT, Mumbai; that he work on behalf of the various importers / exporters and as a link between the importers/ exporters and the CHA; that he also receives work from other forwarders; that he receives payment/commission from the importer/exporter/forwarder for the services provided which is either received in cash as well as by account transfer; that the payment to CHA is done by him in cash as well as by account transfer. 12.8 Upon being asked Shri Yogesh Kanubhai Goradia stated that Let Export Order has been granted for those shipping bills filed by M/s. Rishad Shipping & Clearing Agency Private Limited85M/s. Premji Kanji Masani Private Limited however no Let Export Orders have been passed in the case of shipping bills filed by M/s. SSS Sai Forwarders Private Limited. 12.9 Shri Yogesh Kanubhai Goradia, u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bsp; DECORATED LAYERS OF PLASTICS, lying at Contrans Logistics Private Limited's CFS, to be exported by M/s. Vicky Sales and M/s. Jagdambe Exports under different 8 Shipping Bills, tabulated at Para 2 & 3 supra, was carried out in presence of two independent panchas along with Shri Chirag Manatar, Executive of M/s. SSS Sai Forwarders Private Limited and Shri Yogesh Kanubhai Goradia, Proprietor of M/s. Jay Gigev Clearing Agency, Mumbai; that during the inspection and after looking to quality and condition of the goods it appeared that the said goods appeared to be overvalued in contravention of the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 therefore the entire lot of good packed in 720 cartons, weighing 14,400 kilogram net, having declared F.O.B. value of Rs. 11,39,49,416/- seized under provision of Section 110 ibid and were handed over to custodian i.e. M/s Contrans Logistics Private Limited for safe custody. The above proceedings were recorded' under panchnama dated 31- 05-2019(Sl. No. 93 of Annexure "A" of Show Cause Notice). 29.1 Statement of Shri Kanhaiya Agarwal, Director of M/s. SSS Sai Forwarders Private ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....clients with reference to work related to clearance of the subject export cargo as they were under the impression that further verification is not warranted as the exporters have made export through Pipavav port earlier as per the shipping bill provided. 29.6 Shri Kanhaiya Agarwal, upon being asked, stated that generally they charge agency charges between Rs. 1,500/- to Rs. 2,500/ Stuffing charges Rs. 500/-, Shipping Bill Extra Rs. 300/- to Rs. 500/-, CFS charges and EDI Charges are as actual; that they have sent a , quotation of Rs. 2,000/- agency charges and S/B charges of Rs. 300/- to M/s. Vicky Sales and M/s. Jagdambe Exports through Shri Yogesh Kanubhai Goradia; that he produced the invoices raised by his firm to other exporters which shows that they have not charged anything extra.(Sl. No. 156 of Annexure "A" of Show Cause Notice). 58.1 Now, therefore, in view of Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Clause 6 of Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation of Certain Provisions) Ordinance, 2020, M/s. Vicky Sales, New Delhi, are hereby called upon to show cause to the Additional Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Jamnagar having his office at Sarda House, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....elhi, are hereby called upon to show cause to the Additional Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Jamnagar having his office at Sarda House, Opp. Panchwati, Bedi Bunder Road, Jamnagar 361 008, within 30 days from the date of receipt of this Show Cause Notice, as to why: (a) goods having declared F.O.B. value of Rs. 7,13,07,000/- involving illegal refund of Integrated Goods & Services Tax amounting to Rs. 1,28,35,260)- should not be held liable for confiscation under Section 113(d) of the Customs Act, 1962; and (b) penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 should not be imposed upon them for rendering the above goods liable for confiscation; and : 58.4. Now, therefore, in view of Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Clause 6 of Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation of Certain Provisions) Ordinance, 2020, Shri Sandeep Dawar, is hereby called upon to show cause to the Additional Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Jamnagar having his office at Sarda House, Opp. Panchwati, Bedi Bunder Road, Jamnagar 361 008, within 30 days from the date of receipt of this Show Cause Notice, as to why: (a) penalty under Section 114 of the Customs A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y called upon to show cause to the Additional Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Jamnagar having his office at Sarda House, Opp. Panchwati, Bedi Bunder Road, Jamnagar 361 008, within 30 days from the date of receipt of this Show Cause Notice, as to why penalty under Section 114 and/or 114AA of Customs Act, 1962 should not be imposed upon them. 59 The Noticees are hereby directed to produce all evidences upon which they intend to rely in support of their defence at the time of showing cause. They are further directed to indicate in their written reply as to whether they wish to be heard through virtual mode as stipulate in Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs, New Delhi's instructions dated 27-04-2020 issued from F. No. 390/Misc/3/2019-JC or in person .. " 4.4 After making investigations the show cause notice was issued to the CB, proposing for revocation of his license pending the enquiry to be made in the matter by the enquiry officer. 4.5 The report of enquiry officer on the each of the charges and contravention leveled against the appellant is reproduced below: ARTICLES OF CHARGE AND FINDINGS OF INQUIRY 15. Regulation 10(a) of CBLR, 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ld not detect this difference. Findings of inquiry 15.3. I have seen copies of authorization letters produced by CB during P.H. I have gone through the Incident report dt. 20-6-19 with statement of CB dt. 19-6-19 and SCN dated 24.06.2020 issued by the Additional Commissioner of Customs (Preventive),Jamnagar after completion of investigation. 15.4. The CB obtained authorization from exporter through Mr. Yogesh Goradia. It is also important to mention that throughout the investigation both exporters have not denied the authorization and didn't indicated that they have not authorized the CB. Therefore charges that CB contravened the provisions of Regulation 10(a) are not proved, 16. Regulation 10(d) of CBLR, 2018 "The Customs Broker shall advise his client to comply with the provisions of the Act, other allied Ads and the rules and regulations thereof and in case of noncompliance, shall bring the matter to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs. as the case may be" 16.1. As per para 9.2 of impugned Show Cause Notice the CB appears to have contravened the provisions of Regulation 10....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tive), Jamnagar after completion of investigation. There is no evidence to establish that CB has ill-advised the exporters about compliance of legal provisions or has hide any non-compliance by exporter from customs officers. Therefore charges that CB contravened the provision, of Regulation 10(d) are not proved. 17. Regulation 10(e) of CBLR, 2018 "the Customs Broker shall exercise due diligence to ascertain the correctness of any information which he imparts to a client with reference to any work related to clearance of cargo or baggage;" 17.1. As per para 9.3 of impugned Show Cause Notice, CB appears to have contravened the provisions of Regulation 10(e) of CBLR.2018 as they failed to exercise due diligence to ascertain the correctness of the information that they were imparting to their client. As admitted by the CB is his statement dated 19.06.2019 that he was in impression that further verification not warranted as the exporters have made export through Pipavav Port earlier as per the shipping Bills provided which led to the fraudulent export of goods for IGST availment The CB appears to not have worked diligently in the clearance of the said s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he authorized representative of these exporters and on receipt of documents/information immediately landed them over to the officers of customs. There was no delay by the CB in performing its duties as Custom Broker. Findings of inquiry 18.3. As per copies of checklist submitted by CB along with written submissions during PH and Incident report dt. 20-6-19, the development of events should be as follows. • On 21-5-19 CB asked for KYC documents and prepared checklist • On 21-5-19 exporter approved checklist. • On 22-5-19 CB asked for supporting documents to exporter. • On 22-5-19 & 24-05-19 shipping bills were filed. • On 25-5-19 DC, Customs, Pipavav called for documents supporting the valuation • On 31-5-19 Goods examined and seized in presence of CB and representative of exporter, I don't see any delay on part of CB here. Therefore charges that CB contravened the provisions of Regulation 101m) are not proved. 19. Regulation 10(11) of CBLR, 2018 "the Customs Broker shall very correctness of importer Exporter Code (IEC) number, Goods and Services Tax Identif....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ized representative of exporter as well as forwarder of both exporters, Sh. Yogesh Goradia was physically present at Pipavav Port during the examination of goods and also during investigation by the officers of customs. He also tendered his statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 before those officers. Therefore, there is no failure on part of the CB to verify the authenticity of any of the exporters' viz. M/s. Vicky Sales and M/s. Jagdambe Exports. Findings of inquiry 19.3. I have gone through the incident report al. 20-6-19 with statement of CB dt. 19-6-19. On question no 3,4 7 the CB agreed that they had not done physical verification of exporter's address, that they had not talked to exporter in person, that they have not verified authenticity of authorization Letter received through Mr. Yogesh Goradia. I have also gone through trail and WhatsApp communication between CB and Mr. Goradia before filing of shipping bills wherein CB was requesting for KYC documents. During PH dt. 23-3-71, Mr. Dhakan, G-card holder, stated that in response to these emails, their regional office received KYC documents by hand before filing of shipping bills. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ss and antecedents of the exporters. The CB had no interaction with the exporter IEC holder. In fact, during preliminary investigation conducted against Exporters M/S Vicky Sales and M/s Jagdambe Exports, it was observed that Shri Yogesh K. Goradia, a forwarder and authorized representative of the exporters, had played active role at Port Pipavav. CB was dependent all the time on Shri Yogesh Goradia rather than on exporters for export related activity. The Customs documents were received from Shri Yogesh Goradia and not from M/s Vicky Sales and M/s Jagdambe Export the exporting firm. Despite enough experience in Customs Broking, it is strange that this did not arouse suspicion in mind of CB especially when CB was not in touch with their clients by any means. Thus it is evident that Customs Broker was deliberately not dealing with the exporter and he obtained authorization without proper verification of KYC documents in order to facilitate fraud being perpetrated. I find that the whole purpose of obtaining authorization has been defeated i.e. to ensure that the CB has interacted with the genuine exporter/ importer and is aware of the goods to be cleared on behalf of the client. The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... warranted as the exporters have made export through Pipavav Port earlier as per the Shipping Bills provided which led to the fraudulent export of goods for IGST availment. In this regard, I find that the omission of imparting proper information regarding legal methods of export and obligations of an exporter and facilitating fraudulent exports is not acceptable. Instead, the CB conveniently received the documents from Shri Yogesh Goradia, who had no authorisation or any legal standing to hand over documents on behalf of their client. There is no evidence of the CB making any effort to discourage such exports. Thus, it is clear that the CB did not impart any information at all to their client and did nothing to discourage him from being fraud exporter. 8.2 Thus, it is clear that the CB has not worked diligently in the clearance of the said shipping bills for export consignments which were found mis-declared. The CB had clearly accepted the documents from a person who was not the employee of the exporter and filed the S/B. Hence, it is evident that the Customs Broker by their acts of deliberate commission and omission had facilitated the exporters. to avail CGST/SGST credit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f efficiency of the CB. On the other hand, these commissions and omissions on the part of the CB firm prove total inefficiency in discharging their duties as a Customs Broker. Hence, I find that the CB has violated and contravened the regulation 10(m) of CBLR, 2018. 10.2 I find that as a result, the whole purpose of KYC i.e. to ensure that the CB has received and verified the KYC documents submitted by the genuine client, is defeated. I find that the total IGST involved due to the alleged fraudulent over invoicing is Rs 2,05,36,416/-. The exporters fraudulently availed this type of credit of IGST with intention to get refund from overvalued exports. Thus considering the high amount of revenue involved, the CB was required to be more vigilant in verification of KYC norms at the time of taking up the consignment for Customs clearance, which had not been done in this case. In this regard, I find it strange that the CB who has enough experience in matters of dealing with the importers and exporters, conveniently ignored the fact that the Shipping bills were similar and of same value and having noticed that the signatures made on authorization letter, export invoice, Bank verif....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ax paid on the goods exported out of India and such application shall be deemed to have been filed only when:- (a) the person in charge of the conveyance carrying the export goods duly files 3[a departure manifest or] an export manifest or an export report covering the number and the date of shipping bills or bills of export; and (b) the applicant has furnished a valid return in FORM GSTR- 3 4[or FORM GSTR-3B, as the case may be; ^14[(c) the applicant has undergone Aadhaar authentication in the manner provided in rule 10B;] (2) The details of the 5[relevant export invoices in respect of export of goods] contained in FORM GSTR-1 shall be transmitted electronically by the common portal to the system designated by the Customs and the said system shall electronically transmit to the common portal, a confirmation that the goods covered by the said invoices have been exported out of India. ^6[Provided that where the date for furnishing the details of outward supplies in FORM GSTR-1 for a tax period has been extended in exercise of the powers conferred under section 37 of the Act, the supplier shall furnish the information relating to exp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t B of FORM GST RFD-07 .] (8) The Central Government may pay refund of the integrated tax to the Government of Bhutan on the exports to Bhutan for such class of goods as may be notified in this behalf and where such refund is paid to the Government of Bhutan, the exporter shall not be paid any refund of the integrated tax. ^11[(9) The application for refund of integrated tax paid on the services exported out of India shall be filed in FORM GST RFD- 01 and shall be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of rule 89] ^12[(10) The persons claiming refund of integrated tax paid on exports of goods or services should not have - (a) received supplies on which the benefit of the Government of India, Ministry of Finance notification No. 48/2017-Central Tax, dated the 18th October, 2017, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i), vide number G.S.R 1305 (E), dated the 18th October, 2017 except so far it relates to receipt of capital goods by such person against Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme or notification No. 40/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dated the 23rd October, 2017, published in the Gazette of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot allowed any authority to re-determine the value and vary the refund claim. In the circumstances provided by the sub rule 4, Custom Officer at port could have with held the refund claim and refer the matter to the concerned Commissioner of Central Tax, for considering the refund claim. The refund in any case cannot exceed the amount of IGST paid by the exporter at the time of clearance of the goods for export from his premises. Interestingly in the present case the show cause notice issued by Jamnagar Customs and the impugned order goes a step further where they proceed against the exporters and the CB's for the ITC credit taken by the exporter on the basis of the basis of the supplies received by them. We have serious doubts about the actions proposed vis a vis the provisions of Rule 96 reproduced above. Customs authority can proceed for overvaluation of the goods as per the provisions of Custom Act, 1962, but can they question the ITC credit availed by the exporter. Be that as it may be, here the licence of CB has been revoked for the reason that the exporters have fraudulently availed excess ITC, by receiving the goods at inflated prices from their supplier. 4.9 The role of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....een seen and verified by the appellant. The allegation that the IEC was obtained by submitting forged documents has no effect on the appellant as they could only verify the correctness of the documents submitted before taking up of the work for any importer. There is no stipulation or legal requirement to physically verify the business premises or residential premises of the importer and also to have a personal meeting with the importer before taking up the work for any importer. 8. We also note that in the present case the contravention alleged against the importer is non-declaration of retail sale price on auto parts imported by them for assessment under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for CVD. We find that the bill of entry was filed by the appellant after the goods were detained by the officers of DRI. The said bill of entry was filed on first check basis for verification of the goods before assessment. In such a situation, we find that no mala fide or intentional violation of any provisions of the Customs Act can be alleged on the part of the Customs broker. Regarding KYC norms and obligations under Regulation 11, we find that case as made out in the origin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....circumstances of the case, the interpretation that the respondent was under an obligation to physically verify the particulars, was misplaced. 2. This Court notices that the CESTAT construed the provisions of Regulation 11 and the Board Circular of 8-4-2010 and found that the partnership firm involved in the import of consignment was an existing concern, duly registered under a partnership deed and two existing partners and that its IEC copy, PAN Card, telephone bill of the firm, Voter ID of the partners, copy of the partnership deed have been verified by the respondent." 4.12 In view of discussions as above we do not find any merits in any of the findings recorded by the Principal Commissioner, in respect of any of the charges framed against the appellant under regulation 10 (a), (d), (e), (m) & (n), whereas the findings recorded by the enquiry officer are more justifiable and logical. In the case of ACE Global Industries [2018 (364) ELT 841 (Tri Chennai)] tribunal observed as follows: "6. We are unable to appreciate such a peremptory conclusion. The CBLR, 2013 lays down that stepwise procedures are to be followed before ordering any punishment to the Cu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s established that the imports have been made making use of the IEC Code number of M/s. Unisys Enterprises. The partners of M/s. Unisys Enterprise have admitted that they were not the actual importers but the import was organized by Shri Amar Vachhar. For monitory considerations, the IEC code number was allowed to be utilised by M/s. Unisys Enterprise. It is further on record that Shri Amar Vachhar has been in touch with Shri Sameer Jha, proprietor of appellant firm. 9. Violation of Regulation 11(a) has been alleged against the appellant. The argument of the appellant is that there is no need for a personal meeting of the CB with the importer. However, we find that this is a case where IEC of the importer firm was being misused by a third person, Shri Amar Vachhar who was neither partner nor held any other official position in that firm. Both the partners of M/s. Unisys Enterprises have disclosed in their statements to DRI that they were not aware of the details of the imports and had never met Shri Sameer Jha, proprietor of CB. From this, it emerges that the appellant has failed to obtain the authorization from the actual importer and violation of Regulation 11(a) stands ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of any information and to advice the client accordingly. Though the CHA was accepted as having no mens rea of the noticed misdeclaration/under- valuation or mis-quantification but from his own statement acknowledging the negligence on his part to properly ensure the same, we are of the opinion that CH definitely has committed violation of the above mentioned Regulations. These Regulations caused a mandatory duty upon the CHA, who is an important link between the Customs Authorities and the importer/exporter. Any dereliction/lack of due diligence since has caused the Exchequer loss in terms of evasion of Customs Duty, the original adjudicating authority has rightly imposed the penalty upon the appellant herein." HLPL Global Logistics Pvt. Ltd. [2019 (370) E.L.T. 501 (Tri. - De!.)} wherein it was held that - "Under the circumstances, we are in agreement with the finding of the Ld. Adjudicating authority that CHA helps not properly verified the functioning of the client from at the declared address by using reliable independent and authenticate documents. This was a serious lapse on part of the CHA in verifying the KYC before taking up the Customs clearance of consig....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the licence and the other is to revoke it. Suspension would obviously mean that licence would be for a particular period inoperative. An order of revocation would mean that licence is totally inoperative in future, it loses its currency irretrievably. Obviously, suspension/revocation, as the case may be, has to be directed looking to the gravity of the situation in the background of facts. For minor infraction or infraction which are not of very serious nature order of suspension may suffice. On the contrary, when revocation is directed it has to be only in cases where infraction is of a very serious nature warranting exemplary action on the part of the authorities, otherwise two types of actions would not have been provided for. Primarily it is for the Commissioner/Tribunal to decide as to which of the actions would be appropriate but while choosing any of the two modes, the Commissioner/Tribunal has to consider all relevant aspects and has to draw a balance sheet of gravity of infraction and mitigating circumstances. The difference in approach for consideration of cases warranting revocation or suspension or non-renewal has to be borne in mind while dealing with individual cases....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he 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 important to note that the appellant has - as of today - been unable to work the license for 8 years, and thus been penalized in this manner. This is not to say that the trust operating between the Customs Authorities and the CHA is to be taken lightly, or that violations of the CHA Regulations should not be dealt with sternly. A penalty must be imposed. At the same time, the penalty must - as in any ordered system - be proportional to the violation. Just as the law abhors impunity for infractions, it cautions against a disproportionate penalty. Neither extreme is to be encouraged. In this case, in view of the absence of any mensrea, the violation concerns t....