TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 725
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has an accounting office at 16, Strand Road, Kolkata for doing its back office work. 2.1. On 10th of September 2021, the appellant was appointed by an importer viz. M/s Arihant Overseas to act as a Customs broker. M/s Arihant Overseas has been a regular importer and are engaged in the business of import and export and has been importing goods through various Customs brokers at various ports. 2.2. The appellant submits that they filed a bill of entry for home consumption on the basis of the documents submitted to them by the importer wherein it was stated that goods were Girl's knitted top polyester garments and boy's polyester garments. The importer paid the self-assessed duty. The container was destined to Sonai CFS. 2.3. On 19th September 2021, the container arrived at CFS Sonai. On the same day the appellant's representative visited the CFS for the purpose of clearance of the goods. The bill of entry was RMS facilitated and no assessment and examination was prescribed. The Custom Authorities posted at Sonai CFS asked the appellant to take delivery of the container. However, before taking delivery of the container, the appellant's representative noticed that there was mi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 100% examination at its own cost and upon examination, the goods were found to be mis-declared and undeclared goods. 2.9. The goods were seized. The appellant asked the importer to appear in the Custom House before the Custom Authorities and he appeared on 5.10.2021 and he made the statement that he was the importer of the goods and that he imported the goods for supply of the goods to one Mr. Vineet Goel of Ludhiana and he gave his mobile number. He stated that he had several dealings with Mr. Vineet Goel and that Vineet Goel was doing business in the name and style of M/s Bhagawati Overseas. 2.10. Mr. Praveen Badani appeared on next day ie. 6th October, 2021 and given a statement. The appellant's partner Mr. Amar Agarwal's statement was also taken on 7th October 2021. In his statement, he explained as to how he found the mismatch of the seal in the container. He stated that the container did not come under escort and that there was no alert in the system and that in spite of the container under RMS he did not take release of the goods. He stated that the container had been allowed to leave the Port in contravention of Commissioner's SOP and Quoto Covention which requires s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he did not cooperate. 2.16. There was no issue as to why the Department allowed the container to go out without escort contrary to SOP of Custom House. No clarification was taken from the shipping company whether they sent any intimation to the Customs Department. No enquiry was made as to the reason how seal mismatch took place. Ignoring all these irregularities, the appellant was charged that they have committed the breach of Regulations 10 (d), 10 (j), 10 (m), 10 (o), 10 (q) of Customs Brokers Regulation, 2018. 2.17. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant on 21-10-2022,(check date?) after about 14 months from the date of seizure. 2.18. On adjudication, the Ld. adjudicating authority has held that the charges against the appellant Regulations 10 (d),10 (m), 10 (o) and 10 (q) of Customs Brokers Regulation, 2018 were sustained and the charge of violation of Regulation 10(j) is not sustained. On the basis of the said findings, the Ld. Commissioner of Customs (Airport & ACC) has revoked the license of the appellant and imposed penalty on the appellant. Aggrieved against the revocation of the license and imposition of penalty, the appellant has filed thi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the appellant has been revoked on the allegation that the appellant has violated the Regulations 10 (d),10 (m), 10 (o) and 10 (q) of Customs Brokers Regulation, 2018. We now proceed to examine the said violations based on the evidences available on record. 6.1. The Ld. adjudicating authority has held that the appellant has violated Regulation 10(d) of the CBLR, 2018. We observe that the Regulation mandates that a Customs Broker must advise their client to comply with the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, and other relevant allied acts, rules, and regulations. In cases of non-compliance, the Customs Broker is required to report the matter to the Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner of Customs. 6.2. We observe that the appellant filed the bill of entry for clearance of the goods. The bill of entry was RMS facilitated and no assessment and examination was prescribed. It is the submission of the appellant that their representative visited the CFS for the purpose of clearance of the goods. The Custom Authorities posted at Sonai CFS asked the appellant to take delivery of the container. However, before taking delivery of the container, the appellant's representative ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es as envisaged under the CBLR, 2018. Accordingly, we hold that the allegation against the CB that they have failed to advise their client to follow the provisions of Customs Act, 1962, is not sustained. Thus, we hold that the allegation in the impugned order that the appellant has violated Regulation 10(d) of the CBLR, 2018 is not substantiated. 7. The Ld. adjudicating authority has held that the appellant has violated Regulation 10(m) of the CBLR, 2018. We observe that the Regulation mandates the CB to discharge his duties with utmost speed and efficiency and without any delay. 7.1. We observe that the Ld. adjudicating authority has given the following findings in the impugned order regarding the violation of the Regulation 10(m) by the appellant. The allegation against the appellant is that the CB had introduced Shri Vineet Goyal, whom he had met in Ludhiana, to Shri Praveen Bhadanias a dummy importer. We find that this allegation is not substantiated with any evidence. Further, from the impugned order, we find that the Ld. adjudicating authority has found the introduction becomes a circumstantial evidence supporting those allegations. We do not agree with the findings of ....