2024 (4) TMI 80

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....0 and imposition of penalty under regulation 22 of Customs Broker Licencing Regulations, 2013 in connection with exports of 'textile articles' by M/s Mehra Overseas, effected under claim for drawback, that were allegedly overvalued and mis-declared. It would appear that proceedings for revocation, and other detriments, under Customs Broker Licencing Regulations, 2013 had been initiated following completion of adjudicatory proceedings against the goods, the exporter and the 'customs broker' by resort to confiscation and penal provisions in Customs Act, 1962. 2. The notice dated 25th January 2019, issued under Customs Broker Licencing Regulations, 2013, alleged breach of obligation in regulation 11(a), 11(d), 11(e) and 11 (n) of Customs Br....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt of Rs. 21,31,000. It was pointed out also that the Tribunal, in Geeta Clearing and Forwarding Agencies Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai [2019-TIOL-1224-CESTAT MUM] and in Setwin Shipping Agency v. Commissioner of Customs (Chennai - VIII) [2021-TIOL-50-CESTAT-MAD], had considered several mitigating circumstances to decry the imposition of penalties. 5. Learned Authorised Representative relied upon the statement of the employee to contend that the appellant was complicit in the attempt to mis-declare the goods. It was his contention that the appellant had had no communication with the exporter and, instead, dealt with a middle man. It was pointed out that there was gross failure on the part of the appellant in complying ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t merely conjoins. 8. Another charge is the failure to exercise due diligence in ascertaining correctness of information imparted to a client. On this, too, there is no demonstrable evidence. The offence is of overvaluation and it is well nigh impossible to engage in conjecture that any information imparted by the appellant had influenced the overvaluation. That leap of assumption is far too much of overreach; indeed, it would appear that there is lack of application of mind in identification of alleged breach with reference to expectations implicit in the obligation. Furthermore, just as in relation to the earlier charge, this one too is of tertiary consequence to the obligation that we now turn to. 9. The appellant has been charged ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nded by one or more beneficial owners taking recourse to documentation made available by exporters on record. There was a time when Customs Act, 1962, in section 2(20), recognised exporters solely as inclusive of any owner or any person holding himself out to be exporter and only in relation to any goods between entry for export and actual export. Inevitably, this always did, and continues to, exclude any transactions which precedes the filing of shipping bills under section 50 of the Customs Act, 1962 and restricted to the owner or any person holding himself out to be an exporter. Subsequently, by amendment of 2017, the term encompassed 'beneficial owners' too. These definitions do not exist in isolation from sheer presence in sect....