TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (8) TMI 328
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l amount of security deposit furnished by the customs broker and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/-. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that an inquiry was initiated by the DRI Ludhiana against Shri Pankaj K. Thakker, F Card holder in CB firm M/s Krishna Shipping and Allied Services who was engaged in import of 1792 MT of Black Papper (CTH 0904) into KASEZ, allegedly from Afghanistan between October 2022 and March 2023 in which customs duty of Rs. 66.10 crore was evaded in collusion with M/s Cuthbert Winner LLP and M/s. Cuthbert Oceans LLP on 1596 MT of 'black pepper' removed into DTA at NIL rate of Customs duty by claiming it to be of Afghanistan origin. DTA clearance to M/s. Cuthbert Winner LLP and M/s Cuthbert Oceans LLP wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sulted in revocation of the Customs Broker licence of Appellant. 5. He also submits that the lower authorities have defined the settled law that statements cannot be relied without offering the deponent for cross-examination. They have neither provided copy of statements not offered such persons for cross-examination before revoking the Customs Broker licence issued to the Appellant. Therefore on this ground also, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside. 6. He further submits that the impugned order revoking license and imposing penalty has been passed in violation of Regulation 17 of CBLR, 2018. It is an undisputed dictum of law that when a statute requires a thing to be done in a certain manner it shall be done in that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the show cause notice that the documents did not bear the name of appellant. Hence the impugned order revoking the customs broker licence under Regulation 14 of CBLR, 2018 is without jurisdiction. 9. He further submits that Ld. Commissioner has erred in failing to appreciate that a Customs Broker and his employee are two different legal entities and hence, a Customs Broker cannot be held responsible for the act or omissions of his employee where there is no appointment to act as Customs Broker. In this case, the license under the CBLR, 2018 is issued to the appellant and not Shri Pankaj Thakkar, who is a different legal entity. 10. Shri Prashant Tripathi, Learned Superintendent (AR) appearing on behalf of department reiterated the finding....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....17(5) & 17(7) are set forth below:- 17. Procedure for revoking license or imposing penalty. - "(1) The Principal Commissioner or Commissioner of Customs shall issue a notice in writing to the Customs Broker within a period of ninety days from the date of receipt of an offence report, stating the grounds on which it is proposed to revoke the license or impose penalty requiring the said Customs Broker to submit within thirty days to the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs nominated by him, a written statement of defense and also to specify in the said statement whether the Customs Broker desires to be heard in person by the said Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs. (5) At ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mann.com 294 (Delhi)/52 GST 827 (Delhi) held as under :- "42. It is settled law that the denial of an opportunity of cross-examination of a witness whose statements have been relied upon in the adjudication order would vitiate the order of adjudication. In Basudev Garg v. Commissioner of Customs - 2013 (294) E.L.T. 353 (Del.), this Court referred to Section 9D of the CE Act and noted that even while upholding its constitutional validity in J & K Cigarettes Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise - 2011 (22) S.T.R. 225 (Del.), a Division Bench of this Court had observed that the circumstances under which the right of cross-examination can be taken away would have to be 'exceptional'. This would include circumstances where the person who had gi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stoms Act, 1962. Such statements were required to be tested through cross-examination. Despite specific request by the Appellant to cross examine such witnesses, no attempt was made to secure their presence in the adjudication proceedings. As per Regulation 17(4) of CBLR, 2018, if the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs declines the permission to examine any person on the ground that his evidence is not relevant or material, he needs to record the reasons in writing for doing so but the Inquiry Officer assigned no reason what so ever. The Commissioner of Customs ignored the error on the part of the Inquiry Officer to grant an opportunity of cross examination of the witnesses. Provisions of Regulation 17(4) we....