TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 1122
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....duly licensed by the Customs Authority. An investigation was conducted by the Joint over-valuation of export goods for availing higher duty drawback by an exporter M/s. Sharp Enterprises. The shipping documents for the said consignments were filed by the Respondent. The Special Intelligence and Investigation Branch (SIIB) upon receiving intelligence inputs, kept the consignments on hold. The details of the consignments are as under: Sl.No. Name of the Exporter (IEC) Shipping Bill No Description of goods (HSN) FOB (INR) Total Qty Exported (KGS) Price per Unit Declared by Exporter (US Dollars) DBK Claimed (INR) 1 Sharp Enterprises 5628074 dt. 28.10.2021 RMG Boys Trousers (jeans) Blended Containing 65% Cotton and 35% man made fibre 93,54,249.20 7920 15.95 2,24,503.01 2 5628163 dt. 28.10.2021 RMG Boys Trousers (jeans) Blended Containing 65% Cotton and 35% made fibre 96,37,755.60 8160 15.95 2,31,306.13 3 5628187 dt. 28.10.2021 RMG Boys Trousers (jeans) Blended Containing 65% Cotton and 35% man made fibre 93,54,292,20 7920 15.95 2,24,503.01 4 5660930 dt. 29.10.2021 RMG Boy....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ne Ms. Savinder Sharma to export the goods to avail duty drawback illegally. Vide Order-in-Original dated 19th January, 2023, it was directed as under: "ORDER In exercise of powers conferred in terms of Regulation 14 & 18 read with Regulation 17 (7) of CBLR, 2018, (i) I hereby revoke the CB Licence No. R- 25/DEL/CUS/2016 valid up to 21.12.2025 of M/s Ravi Dhanwariya (PAN: AKCPD5817E); (ii) I direct the CB to immediately surrender the Original CB License No. R-25/DEL/CUS/2016 valid up to 21.12.2025 along with all 'F/G/H' Cards issued there under; (iii) I order for forfeiture of the whole amount of security deposit furnished by them; (iv) I impose a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on CB M/s Ravi Dhanwariya (PAN:AKCPD5817E)." 8. This order was appealed against before the CESTAT which held that the Respondent had not cooperated in the investigation and hence the Respondent was held to be in violation of Regulation 10(q)of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018. However, insofar as Regulation 10(n) of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 was concerned, it was held by CESTAT that none of the documents were fake or forged. The CESTAT ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sage for the Custom broker not to indulge in such acts in future. Thus the Court is not inclined to set aside the order of CESTAT on this aspect. However, the facts that have emerged in this case from the order-in-original dated 19th January, 2023, as also the impugned judgment dated 5th March, 2025 passed by the CESTAT, coupled with the submissions made by Mr. Aakarsh Srivastava, ld. SSC for the Appellant and by the ld. Counsel for the Respondent, it clearly shows that the conduct of the CHA is quite detrimental. If customs brokers indulge in such conduct of conniving and creating fake exporting firms, it jeopardises the incentives to real exporters. When queried by the Court, the Respondent who is present, is barely showing any remorse. agents and CHAs who appeared to be involved in the proposed exports at the time when the same was traced and stopped by the Customs Department. 15. This Court, while recently analysing the duties and responsibilities of CHAs in CUSAA 56/2024 titled 'NITCO Logistics Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Customs Airport and General' held as under: "15. While on the one hand there can be doubt that the employee was the person who may have been....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(268) ELT 448 (AP) in the following terms: "12...................For minor infraction, or infractions which are not of a serious nature, an order of suspension may suffice. On the contrary, when revocation is directed it has to be only in cases where the infraction is of a serious nature warranting exemplary action on the part of the authorities for, otherwise, two types of actions would not have been provided for. Primarily it is for the Commissioner to decide as to which of the actions would be appropriate but, while choosing any one of the two modes, the Commissioner has to consider all relevant aspects, and draw a balance sheet of the gravity of the infraction and the mitigating circumstances. The difference in approach for consideration of cases warranting revocation or suspension has to be borne in mind while dealing with individual cases. The proportionality question is of great significance as action is under a fiscal statute, and may ultimately lead to a civil death." XXX XXX XXX 11. Viewing these cases, in the background of the proportionality doctrine, it becomes clear that the presence of an aggravating factor is important to justify the penal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... CHA Regulations unjustly restricts the appellant's ability to engage in the business of the CHA for his entire lifetime. As importantly, it skews the proportionality doctrine, substantially lowering the bar for revocation as a permissible penalty, especially given the dire civil consequences that follow. On the other hand, the minority Opinion of the CESTAT, delivered by the Judicial Member, correctly appreciates the balance of relevant factors, i.e. knowledge/mens rea, gravity of the infraction, the stringency of the penalty of revocation, the fact that the appellant has already been unable to work his license for a period of 6 years (now 8 years), and accordingly sets aside the order of the Commissioner dated 24.01.2005." 17. The decision in M/s. Ashiana Cargo Services (Supra) was followed by this Court in the decision in Commissioner of Customs (Airport and General) v. M/s Jaiswal Import Cargo Services Ltd, 2025:DHC:7566-DB. This Court in the said decision held as under: "16. In addition, ld. Counsel for the Respondent on instructions submits that as a matter of retribution, the Respondent is willing to contribute a sum of Rs. 4 lakh towards some good cause. Taking ....