TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 799
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e) of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018, with breach of regulation 10(m) held as not proved, on the finding that the appellant herein had facilitated clearance of six, out of 49, shipping bills pertaining to M/s Hasu Impex in which goods were allegedly overvalued to avail ineligible drawback, was held to suffice for all the possible detriments being fastened on them. The licensing authority has rendered finding that '6. Discussion and Findings:- I have gone through the record of the case, offence report dated 15.11.2022, the Show Cause Notice dated 29.03.2023, and Inquiry Report dated 08.03.2024 Oral and written submission of CV dated 05.06.2024 presented during personal hearing. The Inquiry Officer vide inquiry report dated 08.03.2024 held the charges of violation of Regulation 10(d) & 10(e) of the CBLR, 2018 as 'proved' and violation of Regulation 10(m) as 'Not Proved'. a. From the offence report, I find that exporter firm M/s. Hasu Impex procured fake purchase bills from one Mr. Suhel Ansari against their export consignments to show the overpricing of the goods. During the period from 2012-2016 the exporter made total exports of 49 s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....adherence to obligations referred to in regulation 10 of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018. 5. It is seen that revocation of licence, forfeiture of security deposit and imposition of penalty had been founded on the alleged breach of regulation 10(d) and 10(e) of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018. It is also seen that the issue pertains to alleged overvaluation of export cargo with intend to claim ineligible drawback. As pointed out by Learned Consultant, the Tribunal in re Palak Logistics Private Ltd had followed the decision of the Tribunal, in John K Mathew v. Principal Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai by final order [final order no. 85750/2024 dated 5th August 2024] disposing off appeal [customs appeal no. 87232 of 2023] against order [order-in-original no. 40/CAC/PCC(G)/SJ/CBS-Adj dated 27th September 2023] of Principal Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai wherein it had been held that '2. M/s Beejay Clearing & Forwarding Agency, holder of 'customs broker' licence no. 11/707, was one among the many that came under scrutiny in investigation of value of shipments undertaken by several exporters who had allegedly secured 'drawback' in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... misconduct and by, thereby, also leaving it to the designated 'inquiry authority' to fill in the gaps, is contrary to the pre-requisite of proceedings that, unlike recoveries of duties of customs which are episodic, prejudice continued practice of a profession. There is no allegation of 'non-export' of goods or 'misdescription of goods' or even that taxes indicated in the invoices had not been paid. 3. The foundation of the proceedings, in which the appellant has ostensibly been fastened with such overwhelming role as to warrant termination of licence to practice a profession, is the handling of three shipping bills out of thirty one consignments involving claim of Rs.3,31,000 as drawback on 'imitation jewellery' exported by M/s World Wide Export between 2012 and 2017 that relies upon statements of M/s Moize Ahmed Ali Angoothiwala, partner in the exporting entity, on modus operandi, the report from Consulate General of India (CGI), Dubai that Federal Customs Authority of United Arab Emirates intimated clearances there at lower values on import and the statement of one Suryabhan Eknath Dhurphate, proprietor of M/s Sanket Overseas and 'logistics provider', that cost and exp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The allegation of overvaluation is not so critical to these proceedings as it would have been in adjudication for confusability of offending goods, denial of drawback arising therefrom and imposing of fiscal penalty but the other, and even more fundamental, allegation of export goods having been procured against invoices of persons other than suppliers as being, purportedly, contrary to rule 3 of Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995 without bringing the normative into focus - essential for determination of breach - has made it a matter of concern to us. There is neither reference to the requirement of such invoice of supplier for processing of claim for drawback or of any machinery provision in chapter X of Customs Act, 1962 and any Rules framed by Central Government under delegated authority therein and nor, indeed, of defiant disregard of any direction to furnish such at the time of export. It would appear to us that the appellant was sought to be fastened with act of omission and commission in relation to a provision in the Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995 that intended empowering of the Central Government to de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s as proved and, thereafter, relied upon by the licencing authority in the impugned order, a few submissions of Learned Counsel are particularly significant. It was intimated by him that the appellant had handled only three out of the thirty-one consignments and that none of these were exports against claim for drawback. It was submitted by him that they had not been summoned at any stage in connection with the three shipping bills and that, despite the unduly long elapse of time since the consignments had been handled, they were still able to furnish some records to the investigators. It was also pointed out that there was no allegation of having handled the consignments without authorization and that the finding of not having verified the operational details of exporter is based on assumptions. 6. We find that, insofar as the charges are concerned, the impugned order has put together unrelated facts and rendered findings that, consequently, are illogical and untenable. It is seen that the charge of not having advised the client to comply with Customs Act, 1962 and rules and regulations thereof is not founded on any allegation that advice sought had not been rendered and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 8. The alleged breach of obligation to forbear from withholding information contained in any order, instruction or public notice from a client who is entitled to receive them has been established with the finding that details of local procurement said to be prescribed in circular no. 16/2009-Cus dated 25th May 2009 was in breach; however, this fact had not been set out in the notice issued to appellant. There is also no reference to the said circular in the report of the inquiry officer. It would, thus, appear that the inspiration which prompted the licencing authority to refer to this mandate was not tested by offering opportunity at any stage to explain irrelevance of its contents to 'free shipping bills' filed for exports by the appellant or to explain that it had indeed been provided. This is tantamount to introduction of evidence after conclusion of all proceedings in which appellant had participated and is, this, untenable basis for upholding the charge of having breached regulation 10(f) of Customs Broker Licencing Regulations, 2018. 9. The allegation that the appellant had failed to maintain records and accounts has been upheld on the findings that appellan....