TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 1238
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ioner of Customs, Commissionerate VIII, Chennai under Regulation 20 (7) of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 (CBLR, 2013) for imposition of penalty of Rs.50,000/- under Regulation 18 of CBLR, 2013, instead of revoking the licence and forfeiture of security deposit. 2.1 Brief facts of the case are as follows: - On specific intelligence, DRI, Chennai examined a consignment for which a Bill-of-Entry No. 4393017 dated 26.02.2016 was filed on behalf of M/s. Jeppiar Furnace and Steels Pvt. Ltd., Chennai, (namesake importer), by another CHA Sameer Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai for clearance of goods described as "Low Melting Steel (LMS) Bundle Scrap" which arrived in five 20 feet containers. The import do....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d cleared 11 consignments in the past between 15.08.2014 and 12.11.2015 using various IEC's of different persons and firms. 2.6 Consequently, the Show Cause Notice dated 04.03.2017 was issued by DRI, Chennai, to M/s. Allwin Cargo Services for their role in facilitating clearance of past Consignments allegedly adopting the similar modus operandi of smuggling of cigarettes. 2.7 The enquiry officer in this case gave a report that the charges in the SCN are not proved and the CB may be given relief from CBLR, 2013. 2.8 The Adjudicating Authority has not agreed with the report of the Enquiry Officer as it had not touched all the facts of the case and another opportunity of personal hearing was granted to the CB keeping in view of the pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....btained the import related documents from/made correspondence/ and coordinated with unauthorized persons like Mr. Murugan. Also, he handed over the goods to the transporters not as directed by IEC holders but Mr. Murugan. 6.1 Per contra, the Ld. Advocate supported the findings of the lower authority but however, reiterated his primary objection as to the maintainability of the appeal. The summary of his submissions are as follows: 6.2 That Shri Suresh Kumar Partner of M/s. Allwin Cargo Services in his statement dated 01.06.2016 before the SIO, DRI had already deposed that all the documents for the clearances were submitted to him in all these cases by one Mr. Murugan. And also, that several times they asked to give the details of all ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dictates of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 and also submitted that there was no wrong action on the part of the Customs Broker and also that all requirements under the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013 were adhered to and that they are not responsible for the contents of the Import or Export cargo as declared by the Importers / Exporters. 6.6 The Respondents are made scapegoats for the maleficence on the part of the Custom officers who are responsible for proper examinations of the goods sought to be imported and the Respondents wish to submit that they do not have x-ray eyes to know the contents of the cargo that arrived in the container and certainly it was the responsibility of the Custom officers, who had ex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lation 20(7) authorizes the Commissioner to pass such orders as he deems fit, after considering the enquiry report, either revoking suspension or of the Licence or imposing penalty not exceeding the amount mentioned in Regulation 22. Regulation 22 mandates the penalty to be imposed to a maximum extent of Rs. 50,000/- only. Therefore, it's very clear from a conjoint reading of the above Regulation with the impugned order that the adjudicating authority has imposed the maximum penalty and the Regulation do not permit anything beyond this and there is no question of any leniency being shown. The authorities cannot go beyond the mandate of the provision and therefore, the Review Committee requiring intervention of this forum to the above is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, under sub-regulation (5) Provided that no order for revoking the licence shall be passed unless an opportunity is given to the Customs Broker to be heard in person by the Commissioner of Customs." 11. Thus, what the statute requires is clear either revocation or penalty up to Rs. 50,000/-, but never both. The review authorities therefore cannot insist for adopting their views since that is undisputedly the domain of the Commissioner in stricto sensu. When the legislation in its wisdom has clearly pegged the upper limit of penalty at Rs. 50,000/-, it could not have been called as meagre. This is the amount of penalty that is prescribed for violation of CBLR, 2....