TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (5) TMI 669
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted to work as customs broker at various customs stations. The appellant is engaged in the customs clearance of import and export. A show cause notice dated 19.07.2022 was issued by the Ld. Commissioner of Ludhiana under 17(1) of CBLR, 2018 alleging as under:- "A communication from Additional Commissioner of Customs, ACC Export, New Customs House, New Delhi vide letter C.No VIII/(10)ACE/SIIB/ABD/45/2020-21/637 and 639 both Dated 28.04.2022 was received wherein it was stated that a case was investigated by their office regarding consignment covered under Shipping Bill No. 5352634 dated 18.10.2021 intended to be exported by way of misdeclaration and undervaluation of goods. The description of goods as per shipping bill was "100% Plastic PCB" whereas, upon examination/ report by the Chartered Engineer the goods were found to be "old & used/broken PCB's covered under the category of E-waste. E-waste was intended to be exported by violating the provisions of Section 50 of the Customs Act, 1962 by not declaring the truthful declaration as warranted, deliberately misdeclared/not declared the proper value of the export goods as required under Customs Valuation Rules, 2007, violate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....10 of Customs Broker Licensing regulations 2018, but also facilitated knowingly to Shri Girish Goel for violating various provisions such as Section 50 of the Customs Act, 1962, undervalued the export goods against requirement under Customs Valuation Rules, 2007, violated provisions of the Foreign Trade Act, 1992, 1993 and have also not followed regulation (1) of the Foreign Exchange Management Regulation, 2000, 2015 and readwith Section 8 of Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, provisions of Hazardous and other Wastes Rules, 2016 and for such act of commission and commission discussed supra she appears liable for penal provisions under Section 114(iii) and Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962". On these allegations Roshal Lal, Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana was appointed as an inquiry officer in this case. The inquiry officer after completion of inquiry submitted his report which was conveyed to the appellant and appellant was given sufficient time to file the objections against the inquiry report and after considering the objections of the appellant, the Commissioner of Customs, Ludhiana vide the impugned order dated 13.01.2023 revoked the Customs Broker license of the appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....yee as per second proviso to regulation 17 of CBLR, 2018 which empowers the department to initiate similar action against G-Card holders as well but no such action appears to have been initiated against the G-Card holders under CBLR,2018. He further submitted that there is nothing brought on record that the customs broker was having any knowledge or reason to believe the alleged misconduct of G-Card holders. There is no allegation of flow of any illegal consideration to customs broker in respect of the impugned activities. He further alleged violation of regulation 17(1) of CBLR, 2018 according to which a show cause notice is to be issued within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of offence report. Whereas, in this case the show cause notice dated 19.07.2022 was issued beyond 90 days. 5. On the other hand, Ld. DR appearing for the revenue defended the impugned order and submitted that the Commissioner Customs after considering of the allegations' against the appellant and the submissions made by the appellant in their defence has passed well reasoned order and found the appellant guilty of the charge leveled against her. She further submitted that in the inquiry it has....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat Division Bench decision of the principal Bench in the case of Swastik Cargo Ageny Vs. commissioner of Customs (Supra) relied upon by the DR wherein identical allegations were there against the customs broker and the Division Bench after considering the various decisions of the hon'ble Supreme Court and the High Court has upheld the revocation of Customs broker license of the customs broker. The relevant para in the said judgment are reproduced hereinbelow:- "28. Before adverting to the specific violations of CBLR, 2013, it is necessary to appreciate the role or the position of the CHA / CB. The Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of customs Vs K. M. Ganatra & Co. reported in 2016 (332) ELT 15 (SC), placed reliance on the decision in Noble Agency Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai -2002 (142) ELT 84 (Tri. Mum.) wherein a Division Bench of the CEGAT, West Zonal Bench, Mumbai has observed:- "The CHA occupies a very important position in the Customs House. The Customs procedures are complicated. The importers have to deal with a multiplicity of agencies viz. carriers, custodians like BPT as well as the Customs. The importer would find it impossible to clear hi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r reaching consequences in the transaction of business by the Custom House officials." 30. The recent decision of this Tribunal in the case of M/s Falcon India (Customs Broker) Vs. Commissioner of Customs, (Airport and General) New Delhi in Customs Appeal No. 50934 of 2021 dated 21.03.2022, it has been observed: "33. The above decisions lay down that the Customs Broker (or Custom House Agent) is a very important person in the transactions in the Custom House and it is appointed as an accredited broker as per the Regulations and is expected to discharge all its responsibilities under them. Violations even without intent are sufficient to take action against the appellant. While it is true, as has been decided in a number of cases, that the Customs Broker is not expected to do the impossible and is not expected to physically verify the premises of the importer or doubt the documents issued by various Governmental authorities for KYC, it is equally true that the Customs Broker is expected to act with great sense of responsibility and take care of the interests of both the client and the Revenue. It is expected to advise the client to follow the laws and if the client....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....2022 is not possessing the Document Identification Number (DIN), accordingly it is void and deemed to have been never issued and cannot be assigned any credence is incorrect. I find that the Inquiry report dated 14.10.2022 has been submitted to the Commissioner, Customs Commissionerate Ludhiana, as per direction given in the show Cause Notice itself, on 17.10.2022 which was shared to the Customs Broker vide letter F.No. GEN/CB/LIC/85/2022-Tech-O/o-Commr-Cus-Ludhiana/I/804336/2022 dated 17.10.2022 under DIN 20221075NK000022272F. From this, it is evident that the inquiry report is genuine and valid. I observe that the contention of the Customs Broker is incorrect. 5.5.2 The Customs Broker contended that during enquiry proceedings cross examination of representative of M/s Aly Baba Decor who was dealing with export and that of Sh. Sunil Kumar referred in para 5 of show cause notice, to bring on records the factual position and to assail the allegations made in the show cause notice was requested by the Deputy Commissioner cum Inquiry Officer. The Customs Broker also requested for cross examination of Sh. Girish Kumar and Sh. Dinesh Bhardwaj -....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lhi un-earthed that the IEC of M/s Aly Baba Décor was misused by Sh. Girish Kumar for exporting goods i.e E-waste belonging to Sh. Sunil Kumar by undervaluing and misclassifying the same. Therefore, the Customs Broker was failed to fulfil the obligation conferred on the Customs Broker under 10(n) of the CBLR, 2018 . 5.5.4 The Customs Broker contended that there are no action proposed against G-Card holder i.e. Sh. Girish Kumar & Sh. Dinesh Bhardwaj. I observe that Customs Broker did not bring any evidence that Girish Kumar is G-card holder of Ms Meenu Rathore. G-card to Sh. Dinesh Bhardwaj was not issued by Ludhiana Customs Policy Section. Moreover, Sh. Girish Kumar and Sh. Dinesh Bhardwaj (G-card holder) have been made co-noticee in the show cause notice dated 07.04.2022 issued by the Additional Commissioner, Air Cargo Export, New Custom House, New Delhi. Thus the contention of the Customs broker is not tenable. 5.5.5 The Customs Broker contended that there is nothing brought on records the customs Broker was having any knowledge or reason to believe the alleged mis-conduct of G-Card holders. There is no allegation of ....