TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 1203
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was arrested on 22-012021; DRI issued an Incident Report, dated 25.01.2021, to Commissioner of Customs Ludhiana, who suspended Customs Broker License under Rule 16 (1) of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulation 2018 (CBLR, 2018), on 05.02.2021; a Personal Hearing was scheduled on 19.02.2021, wherein the appellant requested that copies of documents may be supplied; the same were supplied documents on 05.05.2021; a Corrigendum dated 18.07.2021 was issued; the appellant were given option to attend Personal Hearing Notice on 02.09.2021/03.09.2021 and; personal hearing was held on 06.09.2021; the appellant submitted written explanation on 13.09.2021. M/s Goyal Steel Industries (claiming to be the Importer) filed, a CWP No. 20282 of 2021, before Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana, seeking directions for re-export of goods along with other reliefs; Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 05.10.2021 directed the department to decide the issues. A Show Cause Notice, dated 10.11.2021, was issued to the Appellant as well as other persons involved; an order to extend the suspension of the appellant was issued on 27.10.2021. M/s Goyal Steel Industries (claiming to be the Importer) filed, a CWP....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thin four corners of the provisions of the CBLR 2018; as per the statement dated 19.03.2021 tendered by Sh. Yashpal Goyal, Prop of M/s Goyal Steel Industries, the said Proprietor has admitted to the fact that he had signed the Authorizations as well as High Sea Sales Agreement for the purposes of clearance of goods imported at the port of ICD HTPL; the impugned Order is liable to be set aside since the Appellant Customs Broker had no knowledge regarding the offending goods if any concealed within the Containers declared as Light Melting Scrap; imported goods were accompanied with all import documents including the PSIC issued by the pre inspecting agency who had certified that the goods imported in the containers were "Light Melting Scrap"; there existed no occasion on the Appellant to report to the competent Authority in respect of the violations if any committed by the Importer; the Impugned Order is illegal arbitrary and based on wrong appreciation of facts since the Importer M/s Goyal Steel Industries had categorically requested to the Respondent for de stuffing of goods as well as provisional release. The said fact was supported by the act of the Importer wherein Writ Petition....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he CBLR, 2018. * the appellant-customs broker caused misdeclaration of goods and consequent evasion of customs duty amounting to Rs. 72.17 lakh; * the appellant-customs broker caused import of dry dates and did not comply with Plant Quarantine Regulations Order, 2003: * the appellant-customs broker failed to advise the importer correctly and failed to inform/ notify Customs Authorities violating Regulation 10(d). * the appellant-customs broker did not cooperate with the investigation; did not honour summonses and thus violated the Regulation 10(q). * the appellant-customs broker failed to fulfil the obligations as a customs broker, including the maintenance of accurate records and acting in good faith in all dealings in violation of Regulation 13(12): * by contravening the statutory obligations, the appellant customs broker caused significant financial loss to the exchequer, as well as a compromise of national security. 9. Learned Authorized Representative submits further that imposition of Penalty and Revocation of License are justified as the appellant-customs broker breached the Trust reposed and violated Statutory Obligat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the above, we find that the allegation of having effective control, against M/s Secon Logistics/ Shri Jatinder Kumar has not been substantiated and therefore, the charge of them being beneficial owner cannot be upheld. It is not proved conclusively that M/s Secon Logistics/ Shri Jatinder Kumar have forged the documents as the investigations stopped at proving that the signatures on the documents in question were not of Shri Yashpal Goyal and did not proceed further to find out as to who signed them and as to whether Shri Jatinder Kumar forged/signed them. Therefore, the penalties imposed under Sections 112, 114A and 114AA on M/s Secon Logistics/ Shri Jatinder Kumar cannot be upheld. However, we find that the role of Shri Jatinder Kumar/ M/s Secon Logistics in the import of dry dates mis-declared as light melting scrap cannot be ignored at least as far as allowing the payment of duty for one of the impugned consignments through some other broker i.e. M/s Sark Enterprises instead of asking the importer to pay or pay themselves as agents and for not maintaining proper records of the importer, who is claimed to have entrusted the work relating to customs clearance to them. However,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... It can be seen that the timelines as prescribed under various Regulations in CBLR, 2018, have been consistently held by the Courts as mandatory in nature. Each timeline is sacrosanct, and the idea of prescribing a time limit by statute becomes redundant if not adhered to. Therefore, it is not just the overall timeline of 270 days (as set forth in the Circular No. 9/2010, dated 8-4-2010) that needs to be followed, but also each and every timeline as prescribed in the CBLR, 2018. 14.1 Timelines cannot be overlooked by Revenue by citing reasons on merits. We are bound by the decisions, as discussed above, passed by the Coordinate Benches of this Court and other High Courts, which state that each timeline is sacrosanct. 14.2 We are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the decision of the Bombay High Court in the Principal Commissioner of Customs v. Unison Clearing Pvt. Ltd. (supra) that where a reasonable explanation is given for such delay and were accounted for, the delay may be condoned. In any event, in the present case, the facts are distinguishable. The Revenue has nowhere in their pleadings before the CESTAT and neither in their Reply affidavit filed in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ustoms is, thereafter required - in terms of Regulation 20(2) of CBLR - to direct the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs to inquire into the grounds, which are not admitted by the Customs Broker and to submit a report. The Deputy Commissioner of Customs/Assistant Commissioner of Customs is further required to submit the report within a period of ninety days from the date of issue of the notice under Regulation 20(1) of the CBLR. 20. In terms of Regulation 20(6) of the CBLR, the report of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs/Assistant Commissioner of Customs is required to be furnished to the Customs Broker requiring him to make a representation within a period of thirty days, thereafter. 21. In terms of Regulation 20(7), the Commissioner of Customs is required to pass a final order within the period of ninety days of the receipt of the report of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs/Assistant Commissioner of Customs under Regulation 20(5) of CBLR. Thus, within a period of 270 (two hundred and seventy) days from the receipt of the offence report, the Commissioner of Customs has to pass an order either revoking the order of suspension or ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ibed under CBLR, 2018. It is not prudent on the part of the Revenue to accuse the customs broker of the violation of the CBLR, 2018 when they do not themselves adhere to the same Regulations. We further find that it was incumbent on the officers to adhere to the procedures laid down in the law while dealing with the violations. 17. We find that it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a number of cases that a particular act is to be performed in the particular manner prescribed. We find that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandra Kishore Jha v. Mahavir Prasad & Ors. - (1999) 8 SCC 266, held as under: "17....................It is a well-settled salutary principle that if a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner. (See with advantage: Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor [(1935 36) 63 IA 372: AIR 1936 PC 253 (II)], Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of V.P. [AIR 1954 SC 322: 1954 SCR 1098], State of U.P. v. Singhara Singh [AIR 1964 SC 358: (1964) 1 SCWR 57].) An election petition under the rules could only have been presented in the open court up to 16-5 1995 till 4.15 p.m. (working hours ....