AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (8) TMI 264
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....els Pvt. Ltd., Chennai (IEC: 0403028752), namesake importer, for clearance of goods described as "Low Melting Steel (LMS) Bundle Scrap" which arrived in five 20 feet containers. The import documents namely, invoice, Bill-of-Lading, etc., were in the name of M/s. Lakshmi Impex, Madurai and the goods were reportedly sold to M/s. Jeppiar Furnace and Steels Pvt. Ltd. Royapettah, Chennai on High Sea Sale (HSS) agreement basis. 3.1 On specific intelligence, the DRI, Chennai Zonal Unit (DRI-CZU), examined this consignment. Apart from the declared goods, smuggled cigarettes valued at Rs.4.13 crore were found and seized. Consequently, investigation conducted has revealed that Mr. I. Durai Murugan, owner of M/s. India Exim Services, had filed the above impugned Bill-of-Entry on receipt of the import documents from Mr. S. Murugan of M/s. Sri Lakshmi Impex, Madurai. From the voluntary statement of Mr. I. Durai Murugan, that the Bill for impugned clearance was raised in the name of M/s. India Exim only and not in the name of the appellant. 3.2 Mrs. R. Premavathy, who was qualified under Rule 9 of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984, is the authorized signatory of the Customs ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the KK Form. In view of the above, it appeared to the Revenue that post customs clearance, the goods were handed over to the transporter arranged by Mr. S. Murugan with the knowledge of the CHA. 3.5 M/s. Jeppiar Furnace and Steels Pvt. Ltd. vide their letters dated 11.03.2016 and 14.03.2016, have categorically denied their involvement in the smuggling of cigarettes. 3.6 It is also seen from the records that Mr. S. Murugan, Proprietor of M/s. Sri Lakshmi Impex (IEC: 3515010068), his two sons namely, Mr. Sudalai Muthu Murugan, Director of M/s. Lakshmi Impex and Mr. M. Mayandi, were given numerous summons to appear before the investigation for enquiry and to give evidence, which were not complied with. 4. From the foregoing, it has been revealed that the appellant had colluded with unscrupulous persons and had failed to discharge their obligations as a customs Broker as envisaged under the CBLR, 2013 and had contravened the provisions of Regulations 11(a), 11(b), 11(m), 11(n), 11(e) and 11(k) of the CBLR, 2013, thereby resulting in the Order of Suspension of the Customs Broker dated 31.01.2017 and Order of Continuation of Suspension dated 23.03.2017 under Regulation 19(2) ibid. 5.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant has filed the Bill-of-Entry in the name of M/s. Jeppiar Furnace and Steels Pvt. Ltd. only on the strength of the High Sea Sale Agreement, which is an acceptable procedure in Customs. (e) The import documents viz. invoice, packing list, Bill-of-Lading, Pre Shipment Inspection Certificate, etc., describe the goods as "Low Metling Steel Bundle Scrap". Mr. I. Durai Murugan, the marketing agent of the Customs Broker, has also revealed the same facts. (f) The Ld. adjudicating authority has failed to appreciate that the appellant had undertaken the clearance work in good faith that the import item was only steel scrap, which is a normal item of import through Chennai Port and further, the appellant had not noticed any discrepancies in the import documents. (g) The appellant had not contravened Regulation 11(a) inasmuch as both Mr. S. Murugan and Mr. Mayandi are existing persons and not fictitious, which fact was confirmed by the DRI investigation. The appellant had thus filed the Bill-of-Entry based on the genuine IEC Certificate of Mr. S. Murugan. (h) The import documents were received using the digital signature of Mrs. Premavathy, the authorized signatory. The goods were de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ommissioner) has submitted that the Customs Broker has clearly violated the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2013 on many counts and so, revocation of their licence is justified; Negligence on their part in allowing unapproved persons in transacting the Customs business has resulted in smuggling of foreign cigarettes valued at Rs. 4.13 crores, by a novel modus operandi which was detected by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. 10.2 He has argued for confirmation of the order of the Commissioner of Customs. 11. We have considered the submissions made by both the appellant and the Revenue and have also gone through the facts obtaining in this appeal. 12. The issues that are required to be decided by us in this appeal are: - (1) Whether the revocation of Customs Broker Licence of the appellant by the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai vide Order dated 05.10.2017 is justified in the facts and circumstances of the present case? (2) Whether the order of forfeiture of security deposit of Rs.1,00,000/- made by the appellant, under Regulation 18 of the CBLR, 2013, is in order? and (3) Whether the imposition of penalty of Rs.50,000/- on the appellant in terms of Regul....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n of M/s. Sri Lakshmi Impex and how the conspiracy to smuggle huge value of cigarettes was carried out with the connivance of Mr. I. Durai Murugan representing the appellant. 16.1 The appellant, relying upon the decision rendered in the case of M/s. K.S. Sawant & Co. v. Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai [2012 (284) E.L.T. 363 (Tri. - Mumbai)], has submitted that mere signing of documents by a CHA would not prove that the clearances were undertaken by the CHA and punishment for the same could not be revocation of licence of the CHA as that would be extreme and harsh. 16.2 Our attention has also been drawn to the decisions rendered in the cases of M/s. L.M.S. Transport Co. v. Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai [2014 (299) E.L.T. 368 (Tri. - Mumbai) and Thawerdas Wadhoomal v. Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai [2008 (221) E.L.T. 252 (Tri. - Mumbai)] to argue that revocation of licence is not justified when third party was merely bringing business to the CHA and also when the CHA is filing the documents in good faith on the basis of the material handed to him by his clients. 17.1 The appellant has submitted that the DRI has examined the imported goods on 8th an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the CBLR, 2013. 18.2 However, the appellant has allowed Mr. I. Durai Murugan of M/s. India Exim Services to file documents in the name of M/s. Jeppiar Furnace and Steels Pvt. Ltd. without obtaining any authorization from the importer and without verifying the genuineness of the High Sea Sales Agreement, fabricated by Mr. S. Murugan of M/s. Sri Lakshmi Impex, and also issuing KK Form to the transporter for clearance of the imported goods to unauthorized persons and not to the importer. So, the contravention of Regulations 11(a), 11(b), 11(n), 11(e) are proved. 19.1 The Customs Broker Licence was suspended with effect from 31.01.2017 which was finally revoked on 05.10.2017. So, the CHA was out of business for the last more than six years. We take note of the fact that the appellant is unable to do any business and the livelihood of not only the appellant, but also its employees is adversely affected because of the suspension and revocation of the licence. 19.2 In this context, we refer to the decision rendered in the case of M/s. Ashiana Cargo Services v. Commissioner of Customs (I & G) [2014 (302) E.L.T. 161 (Del.)], wherein it was held as under: - "12. Learned Senior Stand....