TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (11) TMI 870
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed in June 2009 even as proceedings for revocation under regulation 20 of Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004 were initiated. 2. Three charges were framed in the notice issued to them to be inquired into by authority appointed on 21st January 2009 which, however, remained inconclusive till 14th August 2018 upon another officer being appointed for the purpose. The report of 7th June 2019 held the charges to be proved and the proceedings culminated in revocation of licence by Principal Commissioner of Customs (General), New Custom House, Mumbai in order no. 68/CAC/PCC(G)/RM/CBS (Adj) dated 27th November 2019 which is impugned before us. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant enumerated the charges framed for alleged breach of regulation 13(d), 13(k) and 19(8) of the erstwhile Customs House Agents Licencing Regulations (CHALR), 2004 (corresponding to regulation 10(d), 10(k) and 13(12) of the Customs Broker Licencing Regulations (CBLR), 2018 that had since replaced it) as requiring the broker to advise clients to comply with the statute and non-compliance brought to the notice of designated authority, to maintain records of documents and correspondence as well as of fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt from '9.3 It is evident that the goods imported in the name of the said firms were actually ordered by Shri Nagpal and even the payment for the same to the supplier, transporter, even duty payment etc were arranged by him and even the delivery of the same was taken by him only at Delhi or at Chennai and hence, these imported goods were actually belonging to him only. But the IEC is not transferable for any import and therefore, these facts should have been immediately brought to the notice to the Department by the CB, but the CB failed to do so, even though they were aware that the IEC was nontransferable, CB M/s Varun Freight Forwarders, CHA No.11/391 should have therefore, advised their clients to comply with the provisions of the CHALR 2004. I agree with the finding of IL wherein he has proved the article of Charge- I leveled against the said CB. Hence, I find that the said CB had violated Regulation 13(d) of CHALR 2004 (now Regulation 10(d) of CBLR, 2018).' in the impugned order. 6. The licencing authority has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Jaspreet Singh Marwaha v. Union of India [2009 (239) ELT 407 (Del)] which arose fr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent under Section 108 of the Act is retracted it can only be relied upon if on examination of evidence one arrives at a conclusion, that the, retracted statement is true and voluntary. Therefore, in the instant case the Tribunal will have to determine as to whether the statement of the appellant i.e., Jasjeet Singh Marwaha passes the safeguards adumbrated in the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of K.I. Pavunny (supra) and Duncan Agro Industries Ltd. (supra).' 7. It is apparent that a general, and tentative, articulation in re Jaspreet Singh Marwaha has been appropriated as enabling the drawal of conclusions from depositions under section 108 of Customs Act, 1962 to the exclusion of any other corroborative, or even peripheral, evidence. Such derivation does not find support either in the facts pertaining to the relied upon decision or the decisions that influenced such observation in re Jaspreet Singh Marwaha. Furthermore, the issue before the Hon'ble High Court was the challenge to statements having been relied upon for ordering suspension of licence with decisions in which statements that were disregarded was held as sufficient to establish complicity of the delinquent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Regulation 20 in a rigid way would lead to a situation where non-compliance with the time frame and even deviation by a single day would resultantly invalidate the entire action and the licence which is under suspension or which is revoked, is liable to be restored. The procedural formality as required to be complied within the time frame prescribed in the regulation, even if it is deviated for whatsoever reason beyond the control of the revenue or the Customs House Agent would result into consequences of declaring the entire action invalid if the provision is construed as mandatory. On the other hand, if the provision the construed as directory, the Customs House Agent would be deprived of his licence for considerable long time, if the time schedule is not adhered to the Revenue at its sweet choice would prolong the procedure and which is a likely situation, no attempts would be made to complete the inquiry within the stipulated period. This is what has weighed in the mind of the High Courts while dealing with the said regulation and holding the same to be mandatory The catena of judgments on which reliance has been placed to declare the provision as mandato....