TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (2) TMI 210
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppellant. Hence the two appeals. 2. The facts leading to the present petition are that the appellant is a holder of Customs Broker License which is valid up to 28.08.2027. On the basis of specific information/input by the DRI, Delhi Zonal Unit that one syndicate was attempting to export mask/fabric of mask to China by way of mis-declaring it as "Packing Materials" and one such consignment of 2480 Kg. was going to be exported vide Airway Bill No. 87612324992 and name of the IEC holder could be M/s Ala Foodstuff Pvt. Ltd. The shipment of the goods attempted to be exported vide Shipping Bill No. 2619886 dated 11.05.2020 was put on hold for further detailed examination by SIIB, Air Cargo Export, New Delhi. The Shipping Bill had been filed by the Customs Broker M/s Freight Logistics. As per the shipping bill, the export goods pertained to the exporter M/s Ala Foodstuff Pvt. Ltd. (IEC No. 1207001406) GSTIN No. 03AAGCA3947FIZY), Amritsar, Punjab. The goods were declared as "packing material for pouch" (RITC Code 48239090). However, on examination by SIIB on 13.05.2020, the goods were found as "non-woven fabrics" appeared to be used in the manufacturing of Mask, which was prohibited for e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....no. is 830 A dated 05.05.2020 whereas the company had raised the invoice number as 894 dated 05.05.2020. The exporter had also submitted a list containing the past export of their consignments, where no such invoice has been found mentioning as A or B. 5. Further, CB in his statement dated 15.07.2021 submitted that the documents were checked by one Shri Kumud Kumar Choudhary who was their employee and he may have committed a mistake in not checking up the authorisation in the shipping bill in question. The Customs Broker pleaded ignorance and that he had no knowledge about the mistake committed by Shri Kumod Kumar Choudhary. 6. Accordingly, show cause notice dated 28.01.2021 was issued to the appellant for violation of the provisions of Regulation 10(a), 10(e) and 10(n) of CBLR, 2018 and for taking action for revocation of the license and forfeiture of the security amount in terms of Regulation 14 read with Regulation 17 of CBLR, 2018 and also for imposition of penalty under Regulation 18 of CBLR, 2018 read with Regulation 17 of CBLR, 2018. On adjudication, the Commissioner concluded that active role was played by Shri Kumod Kumar Choudhary, employee of the CB and Shri Pushpraj Y....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ating authority against the CB. The learned counsel referred to several judgements which we would be dealing later. 9. The contention raised by the department is that the appellant had not obtained the authorisation from the exporter and have, therefore, violated Regulation 10(a). They had also not obtained the export documents from the exporter and refuted the argument that one of their employee did not verify the authorisation as it was obligatory on the Customs Broker to verify the authorisation. The learned Authorised Representative referred to CBEC Circular No. 9/2010-Cus. dated 08.04.2010 and submitted that the CB failed to obtain proper KYC sheet from the exporter without photograph and signature. The learned Authorised Representative relied on the decision in Skytrain Services Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Airport & General), New Delhi - 2019 (369) ELT 1739 (Tri.-Delhi) and Commissioner of Customs Vs. K.M. Ganatra & Co. - 2016 (332) ELT 15 (SC). The department in support of their appeal has also submitted that violation of Regulation 10(a), 10(e) and 10(n) of CBLR, 2018 are grave in nature and the role of the Customs Broker is not limited to an act of omission or commissio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e persons behind this manipulation. We find that Shri Manish Sharma, partner and F Card holder of the appellant company tendered his voluntary statement that the shipping bill was filed on the basis of export documents received from Shri Pushpraj Yadav who is running forwarding firm in the name of M/s POL Enterprises and had received the KYC documents from him but did not receive any authority letter from the exporter and also that he did not verify the address of the exporting firm as being located at Amritsar. Further, it has come on record that Mr. Kumod Kumar Choudhary, an employee of the CB firm was in charge of checking the documents and the submission on behalf of the appellant is that he could have committed the mistake in not checking the authorisation in the impugned shipping bill. We cannot rule out this possibility and the benefit of doubt will go in favour of the appellant, more so when he had promptly taken the requisite action against Sh. Kumod Kumar Choudhary by terminating his services with effect from 16.05.2020 and also by registering FIR on the same day. The fact that within three days from the date the consignment was kept on hold on 13.05.2020, the appellant h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nst the employee, we feel that applying the doctrine of proportionality the forfeiture of security deposit is far beyond proportion and imposition of penalty of Rs. 50,000/- is sufficient. We therefore modify the impugned order to the extent that forfeiture of the security deposit needs to be set aside and only the order whereby the penalty has been imposed is affirmed. We therefore, partly allow the appeal filed by the appellant, customs broker as referred above. Appeal No. 51839/2021 15. The appeal filed by the department against the impugned order for not revoking the customs broker license needs to be dismissed for the reasons stated while considering the appeal of the customs broker. Moreover, it has been settled over the period that no doubt, CHA is a link between the Customs Authorities and the importer and the CBLR Regulations imposes obligation upon them which have to be taken as mandatory but any and every infraction of the CHA Regulations do not justify the imposition of punishment of revocation of license. 16. We may refer to the decision of this Tribunal in Falcon Air Cargo and Travels (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi - 2002 (141) ELT 284 where one o....