TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (2) TMI 287
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... contends that the impugned order was passed on an erroneous premise that the petitioner has acted as a Customs Broker in respect of the exports under certain shipping bills. The petitioner had disputed the same and had succeeded before the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereafter 'the Tribunal') in an earlier round of proceedings [titled Him Logistics Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi: 2015 (325) E.L.T. 793 (Tri-Del)]. 3. In the earlier round of proceedings emanating from an order suspending the petitioner's CB license, the learned Tribunal had found that the petitioner was not engaged as a Customs Broker by the offending exporters and therefore, the question of violation of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 did not arise. 4. Mr. Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, did not contest the above contention. He also does not dispute the facts stated in the petition. He, however, contended that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of an appeal before the Tribunal and the petitioner ought to be relegated to availing alternate remedies. 5. It is apparent that the issues involved in the present petition have been considered....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t goods lying at different ports, which were in the process of being exported including by M/s Kanak Fashion and M/s Dwarka Trading Company were examined and samples were drawn. Statements of various persons including Director and employees of the petitioner were recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. 9. The investigation was also extended to the Customs Brokers. Mr Prakash Sharma, Director of the petitioner was also asked to join the inquiry and his statement was recorded. 10. It was alleged that the petitioner had violated Regulations 11(a), 11(d), 11(j), 11(m) and 11 (n) of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 (CBLR, 2013). Two Directors of the petitioner company were also Directors of another company M/s HLPL Global Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Further, the addresses of the petitioner and HLPL Global Logistics Pvt. Ltd. was the same. In the given circumstances, the Custom Broking License of the petitioner as well as HLPL Global Logistics Pvt. Ltd. were suspended. The suspension was confirmed by the Commissioner of Customs. 11. The petitioner appealed the order suspending its CB License before the learned Tribunal. The petitioner contended that the identities of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....15 to the Commissioner of Customs (General), New Custom House proposing revocation of CB License of the petitioner as well as M/s HLPL Global Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Following the said Offence Report, the petitioner's license was suspended by an order dated 20.03.2015, which was further confirmed by the order dated 10.04.2015. 13. After culmination of the investigations, the Joint Commissioner of Customs issued three Show Cause Notices: two of the Show Cause Notices dated 24.09.2015 and the third dated 19.09.2015. It is stated that the said Show Cause Notices were adjudicated and Orders-in-Original dated 25.08.2018, 04.05.2018 and 03.08.2018 were passed. In terms of the said orders, penalty was imposed inter alia on the Director of the petitioner company for aiding the Customs Broker, M/s HLPL Global Logistics Pvt. Ltd. but no penalty was imposed on the petitioner company. 14. The respondent considered the afore-mentioned Show Cause Notices (Show Cause Notices dated 24.09.2015 and 19.09.2015) as an Offence Report and initiated proceedings for revoking the CB License of M/s HLPL Global Logistics Pvt. Ltd. and three Show Cause Notices, all dated 02.02.2016, were issued. 15. M/s HLPL G....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....revoke the license of the appellant could not have treated the show cause notice dated 22.10.2019 as the offence report because the said show cause notice dated 22.10.2019 arises out of the offence report dated 16.02.2015. 20. It is also not disputed by the respondent that the appellant had filed only one Shipping Bill No. 5199084 dated 25.09.2014 in respect of M/s. Dwarka Trading Company and this Shipping Bill was considered in the earlier show cause notice dated 02.02.2016, which had been quashed by the Delhi High Court. No other Shipping Bill was submitted by the appellant and indeed none has been pointed out by the department. 21. The impugned order dated 30.09.2022 passed by the Commissioner, therefore, cannot be sustained and is set aside. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed." 20. In the present case as well, the Show Cause Notice dated 24.01.2020 issued to the petitioner is, clearly, erroneous as it proceeds on the basis that the Show Cause Notice dated 22.10.2019 is the Offence Report. 21. Mr. Kumar, the learned counsel for the respondent does not dispute that the Show Cause Notice dated 22.10.2019 is in respect of the same offence as the subject matter of the Offence....