TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (9) TMI 326
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rport & General) the Commissioner by which the Customs Broker License of the appellant has been revoked by exercising powers under regulation 14 of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018 the 2018 Regulations for the reason that the appellant had connived with Kultar Singh and abetted illegal withdrawal of Duty Drawback by filing export documents on behalf of six non-existent firms, thereby knowingly aiding the export of overvalued 'Floor Coverings'. 2. The facts reveal that in the year 2014, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence the DRI initiated investigation against 21 exporters who were exporting man-made floor coverings and were claiming duty drawback under Focus Product Scheme by allegedly resorting to over valuation and m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... show cause notices, all dated 02.02.2016, under Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013 the 2013 Regulations proposing revocation of the Customs Broker License of the appellant. 8. These show cause notices were challenged before the Delhi High Court in several writ petitions and the Delhi High Court, by judgement dated 24.05.2016, quashed the show cause notices on the ground that the offense report is actually the letter dated 16.02.2015 sent by DRI and not the show cause notices dated 24.09.2015 or 19.09.2015. Thus, as all the three show cause notices proposing revocation of the licenses were issued beyond the mandatory period of 90 days, they were found to be not sustainable in law. The relevant portion of the said judgment of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he offence report, i.e., within 90 days from 18th February, 2015. Clearly the SCN under Regulation 20(1) of the CBLR, 2013 was not issued within ninety days after 18th February, 2015. xxxxxxxxx 14. Consequently, the Court is satisfied that as far as the W.P. (C) Nos. 1734, 2134 and 2135 of 2016 are concerned, the petitioner not having been issued the SCN within ninety days of receipt of the offence report by the Customs, the SCN dated 2nd February, 2016 issued to it by the Commissioner of Customs (General) is clearly unsustainable in law. The order dated 23rd March, 2015 confirming the suspension of the petitioner's CB licence cannot also be continued on account of the failure to issue the SCN and therefore, complete the e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Dwarka Trading Company and said the Shipping Bill was considered under the show cause notice dated 02.02.2016 which was ultimately quashed by the Delhi High Court; (iii) As no other Shipping Bill had been filed by the appellant, the appellant cannot be treated as Customs House Agent. Hence, in respect of Shipping Bills, other than those pertaining to M/s. Dwarka Trading Company (which has already been set aside by the Delhi High Court), the appellant cannot be charged for violation of CBLR; and (iv) The appellant was denied an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses whose statements were relied upon to confirm the revocation of the license when it is mandatory under regulation 17(4) of CBLR, 2018 (erstwhile regulation ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eration and caused huge loss. Thus, the appellant violated regulation 10(e) of the 2018 Regulations. 13. The submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned authorized representatives appearing for the Department have been considered. 14. The records indicate that earlier the license of the appellant was suspended on 24.02.2015, which order was confirmed on 23.03.2015. This suspension order was challenged by the appellant before the Delhi High Court on the ground that though the offence report was submitted on 16.02.2015, the show cause notice was issued on 24.09.2015 much beyond the statutory period of ninety days contemplated under regulation 20(1) of the 2013 Regulations. The Delhi High Court held that....