TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 417
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l No. 0000008 dated 28.07.2015 was filed in the name of M/s. SEZ Recycling, Mahindra Industrial SEZ area, Mahindra World City, Singaperumal Koil by using the licence issued to the Respondent under CBLR. On receipt of specific intelligence that attempts were on to illegally export red sanders, an item prohibited for export, through Chennai Port in the guise of export of '20 pallets of Zinc Ingots' to M/s. Dream Unlimited International FZC, Ajman, UAE in container No. WHLU 2454955 covered under the above said Shipping Bill No. 0000008 dated 28.07.2015, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Chennai Zonal Unit (CZU) recalled the said container which was on its way to Pusan, Korea. 4. On detailed examination of the container No. WHLU 2454955 by the officers of DRI, CZU, it was found that instead of the declared goods, 202 pieces of red sanders logs weighing 7.2060 M.T. were stacked in the container on a heap of river sand. Shri N. Natarajan, ACF Forest Protection Squad inspected the red colour wooden logs and certified the same to be of Red Sanders. The 202 pieces of red sanders logs, valued at Rs.3,26,70,000/- were seized under the Customs Act, 1962, under mahazar proce....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ii. Regulation 10 has been violated in as much he allowed the unauthorized person to use his CHA license. 7.1 In the above order dated 22.09.2016, following principles of natural justice, an opportunity of personal hearing was granted to the Respondent on 5th October, 2016 before the Commissioner of Customs (Chennai-VIII). During the personal hearing, the Customs Broker submitted their written reply dt. 04.10.2016. 7.2 After going through the records of the case and the submissions made during the personal hearing, the adjudicating authority, viz. Commissioner of Customs (Chennai-VIII) passed Order-in-Original No. 51581/2016 dated 22.11.2016 wherein the Adjudicating Authority ordered for revocation of suspension of the license No. R-172/2011-CHA of the Respondent, ordered vide order dated 22.09.2016, until further orders. 8. Subsequently, a Show Cause Notice dated 23.11.2016 was issued to the Respondent wherein the Respondent was called upon to show cause, as to why the license issued to them should not be revoked and security deposited by them should not be forfeited or penalty should not be imposed upon them under Regulation 20 read with Regulation 18 of CBLR, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pees Fifty Thousand only) on the Respondent and cautioning the Respondent to ensure that the business is conducted by them in strict compliance with the obligations cast upon them under CBLR, 2013. The Respondent was also cautioned that any repeat occurrence may invite severe punishment. 11. Being not satisfied with the impugned order dated 15.05.2017, the Revenue (Appellant) has preferred the present appeal before this forum. 12. The Ld. Authorized Representative Ms. Anandalakshmi Ganeshram, appeared for the appellant and submitted that though the adjudicating authority in his findings has concluded that the allegations in the show cause notice that the Respondent has failed in his obligations cast upon him under Regulation 10 and Regulation 11(b) of CBLR, 2013 are proved, but he has taken a lenient view by just imposing a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) besides cautioning the Customs Broker. 12.1 The Learned AR relied on the judgment in the case of Commissioner of Customs vs M/s K.M. Ganatra & Co - Civil Appeal No.2940 of 2008 [2016-TIOL-13-SC-CUS] to submit that even without intent, any contravention of Customs Broker Regulations would be liable for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ii. Maheshwari Rocks (1) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commr. Of Customs, Chennai 2010 (262) ELT 574 (Tri-Chennai)." Hence, though the CB has contravened the provision of CBLR, 2013, I am inclined to take a lenient view." 13.2 The Learned Advocate further submitted that in the course of the Respondent's business, sometime in May, 2014, the Customs Broker was approached by an entity namely, M/s. SEZ Recycling involved in recycling and processing of metal scrap for handling their export consignments. The Proprietor of this entity is one Shri. Chanchal S. Mehta, that M/s. SEZ Recycling was running their business inside Mahindra City SEZ. He was introduced to them by one Suresh of M/s Jaya Freight Logistics who also happens to be close relative of the Proprietor of the Respondent. Therefore, in good faith and on trust, they started handling of the export cargo of the said M/s. SEZ for Recycling after collecting necessary information. 13.3 The Learned Advocate averred that for the subject consignment they were approached by the client for effecting the export by filing of a Shipping Bill. The export document namely invoice and packing list were handed over to them. Accordin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... K.M. Ganatra & Co Civil Appeal No.2940 of 2008 [2016-TIOL-13-SC-CUS] to the effect that any contravention of CHA Licensing Regulation even without intent would make the CHA liable for punishment listed in the Regulation. It is apt to reproduce relevant extracts of the judgment of the Apex Court as under: "The CHA occupies a very important position in the Custom House. The Customs procedures are complicated. The importers have to deal with a multiplicity of agencies viz. carriers, custodians like BPT as well as the Customs. The importer would find it impossible to clear his goods through these agencies without wasting valuable energy and time. The CHA is supposed to safeguard the interests of both the importers and the Customs. A lot of trust is kept in CHA by the importers/exporters as well as by the Government Agencies. To ensure appropriate discharge of such trust, the relevant regulations are framed. Regulation 14 of the CHA Licensing Regulations list out obligations of the CHA. Any contravention of such obligations even without intent would be sufficient to invite upon the CHA the punishment listed in the Regulations......" We find that in the above judgment, the H....