AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) 
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1029
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....utory requirements and to ensure smooth running of the activities in the Cochin Port. The appellant states that it would also supervise the G-Card holders by conducting random checks of the documents and other details furnished by the importer/exporter. 3. In relation to an import of a consignment that was declared as Diplomatic Cargo, an inspection was conducted by the Officers of the Preventive Department of the Cochin Commissionerate on 05.07.2021, and a quantity of 30.245 kgs. of gold was seized from the consignment declared as Diplomatic Cargo, and in respect of which, Bill of Entry No.8045238 dated 01.07.2020 had been filed by the appellant. Immediately thereafter, an offence report dated 08.10.2021 was filed with the Commissionerate, placing reliance on which, a show cause notice No. 21 of 2011 dated 28.12.2021 was served on the appellant under Regulation 17 (1) of the CBLR, 2018. By the show cause notice, the appellant was directed to show cause as to why its customs broker license should not be revoked under Rule 14 of the CBLR, 2018 on account of violation under Regulation 10(a), (d), (e), (m) and (n) respectively and penalty should not be imposed on the appellant unde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ority had committed grave error by not considering that the Annexure B is issued beyond the scope of Show Cause Notice; e. Whether the Appellate Authority had committed grave error by not considering the Judicial Discipline; f. Whether the Adjudication authority had committed grave error by issuing Annexure B Order-in-Original without studying the relevant documents." 8. On the issue of non-extension of an opportunity to cross examine Customs Officers, the Appellate Tribunal found as follows in paragraph 10 of its order: "10. The third issue is with regard to refusal of cross-examination by the Commissioner. Regulation 17 (4) reads: "The Customs Broker shall be entitled to cross-examine the persons examined in support of the grounds forming the basis of the proceedings, and where the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs declines permission to examine any person on the grounds that his evidence is not relevant or material, he shall record his reasons in writing for so doing." 10.1 With reference to cross-examination, the appellant in their interim reply did not ask for any cross-examination, however, in t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... against the appellant under the CBLR. 10. As regards the contention regarding time bar under Regulation 17 (5) of the CBLR, 2018, the finding of the Appellate Tribunal is at paragraph 7 of the impugned order, which reads as follows: "7. The first issue is whether the notice was time barred. Regulation 17 (1) of CBLR reads:- (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. As per the Regulation 17 (1) of CBLR 2018, the notice is to be issued within 90 days from the date of receipt of the offence report. In the instant case, the offence report dated 8.10.2021 was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....offence being committed. In other words, his right to pursue his vocation has not been prejudiced in any way by the alleged delay beyond the period laid down under regulation 17 (5). It is also noted by the Commissioner that there has been delay on the part of the appellant in furnishing response to the show-cause notice by filing only an interim reply and insisting on unjustified cross-examination of the officers who were nowhere concerned with the case." 11. In particular, we find that the specific contention raised by the appellant in terms of Regulation 17 (5) with regard to the submission of the enquiry report being beyond the period of 90 days from the date of issuance of notice under Regulation 17 (1) was dealt with by the Appellate Tribunal in a practical sense, and on finding that in as much as there was no suspension of the license of the appellant, there was no prejudice caused to the appellant inasmuch as he had been permitted to carry on his activities as a customs broker, and therefore, the 90 days period envisaged in Regulation 17 (5) had to be seen only as directory and not mandatory in the peculiar circumstances that arose in this case. We therefore do not see a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....try of Foreign Affairs, Abu Dhabi 2 8019046/27.06.2020 Faizal Fareed, Dubai Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Abu Dhabi 3 8045238/01.07.2020 Faizal Fareed, Dubai Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Abu Dhabi As seen from the Table, the Bills of Entry were filed to make it appear as if the consignor in these cases was 'Ministry of Foreign Affairs Abu Dhabi' whereas the actual consignor was Shri Saleem, Shri Yousuf Hasan Albe and Shri Faizal Fareed, Dubai. This was clearly evident from the airway bills relating to the respective Bills of Entry No. 7987721 dated 24.06.2020, No. 8019046 dated 27.06. 2020 and No. 8045238 dated 01.07.2020. The cargo whose consignor is mis-declared as the 'Ministry of Foreign Affairs' to make it appear genuine for automated system for clearance as Diplomatic Cargo cannot be considered as oversight when the mistake is occasioned by the appellant who is well aware of the procedures. Such repeated mis-declarations which have resulted in smuggling of gold into India cannot be considered as oversight as claimed by the Branch Manager of the appellant in his statement. The appellant has also alleged that the above facts were ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsulate General of the UAE, Trivandrum. He admitted that the Bill of Entry was filed online showing the consignor as 'Ministry of Foreign Affairs Abu Dhabi UAE' instead of what was mentioned in the airway bill on the instructions of Shri Sarith. He also stated that one of his clearing staff Shri Raveendran had informed him that Shri Sarith is 'not working for UAE Consulate but is engaged for personal work for the diplomats and there was no written communication regarding the fact that Shri Sarith is no longer employed with the Consulate and the payments used to be received by the Consulate through their bank account. 13. From the investigations, it is proved that the appellant had cleared 21 consignments on behalf of UAE Consulate as Diplomatic Cargo and further, the investigations proved that there was a syndicate operating for smuggling the gold. From the investigations and various statements and from the appellants own statement, it is proved that they were aware of the fact that Shri Sarith was no more with the Consulate. The appellant had failed to verify the authenticity of the documents received from Shri Sarith who was not an employee of the UAE Consula....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ued revocation of the license. An affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Commissioner by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs wherein, the following is stated at paragraphs 3 to 7: "3) I respectfully submit that appellant being a Customs Broker was involved in clearance of diplomatic consignments on behalf of UAE consulate. A Customs Broker is a company contracted to make sure the customs declaration is correct, duties and taxes are provided accurately, and payment is received so that the goods can transit across borders smoothly without disruption. License is issued to customs broker after satisfying prescribed eligibility criteria and various conditions as laid down in regulation 5 of CBLR 2018 and after clearing the oral and written examination under regulation 6 of CBLR, 2018. Further, after remitting the statutory fee, license is granted under regulation 7 after the applicant successfully enter into a bond in Form D and where specified a surety bond in Form E for due observance of these regulations and furnish a bank guarantee or a postal security or National Saving Certificate or a fixed deposit receipt issued by a nationalized bank in the name of Principal Commi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... position in the Custom House and in the Customs clearance chain. The Customs Broker is supposed to safeguard the interest of both the importers and the Customs. A lot of trust is placed in Customs Brokers especially by the department to discharge his duties with utmost sincerity and genuineness so as to ensure all the regulations are complied with. As such, the appellant failed to discharge his duties as envisioned under the CBLR, 2018 that resulted in illicit smuggling of 167.073 kgs of foreign origin gold in the consignments that were cleared as diplomatic cargo. The above lapse of appellant in their duties has rightly been construed as abatement to the smuggling of gold into the Country in Order-in-Original No COC-CUSTM-PRV-COM-04-2023-24 dated 31.10.2023 issued by the Commissioner of Customs (Prev.) in which penalty of Rs. 4 crores has been imposed on the Customs Broker under Section 112(a) & (b) of the Customs Act 1962. These actions on part of the appellant are grave economic offences which can only be addressed by the department with stringent actions against the appellant, a Customs Broker, under Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018. 7) I respectfully submi....