TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 1082
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts Licensing Regulations, 1984 (CHALR) and now Regulation 7(2) of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2018. 2.2. An offence report in the form of Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 28.02.2018 was received from Principal Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), R&I Division, Mumbai, alleging attempt to evade customs duty on import of 'Titanium alloy' (forged and machined) by an importer M/s Adler Mediequip Private Limited, A-1, MIDC, Sadavali, Ratnagiri by claiming ineligible exemption benefit vide Sl. No.260(i) of Notification No.50/2017Customs dated 30.06.2017, in which the appellant CB have cleared such imported goods. On the above basis, the jurisdictional Principal Commissioner of Customs (General), NCH, Mumbai, Mumbai Zone-I had concluded that there is a prima facie case against the appellant for having contravened Regulations 11(d), 11(e) and 11(f) of CBLR, 2013/10(d), 10(e) and 10(f) of CBLR, 2018. Accordingly, he had immediately suspended the CB license of the appellant under Regulation 16(1) of ibid, vide Order No. 11/2018-19 dated 11.05.2018; and such suspension was continued vide Order No. 24/2018-19 dated 18.06.2018; further the department had issued Show Cause Not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing the B/E by classifying the imported goods under CTI 8108 9090 and at the insistence of the importer, they had filed the B/Es for the importer on the basis of earlier B/Es filed in the past for classifying the Titanium Alloy articles under CTI 8108 9090 and claiming exemption benefit vide Sl. No.260(i) of Notification No.50/2017-Customs dated 30.06.2017, and on the basis of the registration taken by the importer with the local Central Excise authorities under the Central Excise Act and Rules for claiming the benefit of notification. Therefore, he claimed that the appellant CB had acted with a bona fide intent and on the directions of the importer. Further, he stated that the appellant had no basis to doubt the eligibility of the exemption, especially when the importer had undertaken such imports earlier under the classification adopted by him duly registered with local Central Excise authorities and imported goods have also been cleared by the customs authorities. Hence, there was no occasion for the appellant CB either to advice the importer against the assessment practice followed by the Customs authorities in the earlier clearances of the same goods, or to bring such assessme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oms Broker has fulfilled all his obligations as required under CBLR, 2018 or not. Though the SCN dated 11.05.2018 proposed for action to be taken against the appellant CB for alleged violations under Regulations 10(d), 10(e) and 10 (f) ibid, the learned Principal Commissioner of Customs (General) in the impugned order had dropped the proceedings against the appellant CB in respect of Regulation 10(e) and 10 (f) ibid and held that the appellant CB had violated only Regulation 10(d) ibid, on the ground that they did not observe and inform about the discrepancy of availing ineligible exemption to the importer or to the customs authority. Thus, there is only one distinct charge framed against the appellant CB. Though immediate suspension order No. 24/2018-19 dated 18.06.2018 was revoked by issue of Tribunal's Final Order No. A/85474/2019 dated 14.02.2019, upon completion of inquiry proceedings the Principal Commissioner of Customs (General) after taking into consideration the inquiry report dated 29.12.2023, the record of oral submission made at the time of personal hearing on 30.04.2024, and the written submissions dated 07.05.2024 made by the appellant for considering the charges of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... them. 10.7.3 ... The CB relied completely on the communication received from the importer and has not cross verify the facts. CB's lackadaisical approach can also be seen from the fact that the unit of the goods in B/E No.3100605 dated04.09.2017 was mentioned as 'Nos.' whereas as per the HSN it should have been in "KG.". This clearly shows the CB was disregarding the responsibilities as mandated in CBLR, 2013 (now CBLR, 2018). 10.7.4. Further, CB in his submission stated that the SCN dated 08.02.2013 (issued by investigating agency) was adjudicated vide Orderin-Original CAO No.CC-VA/08/2019-20 Adj.(I) ACC dated 11.06.2019 wherein the proceedings against the director of the CB were dropped. I find that such proceedings initiated against the CB where under the Customs Act, 1962 and proceedings under the CBLR, 2013/2018 are both separate and independent proceedings and outcome of one proceeding has no bearing on the other. Thus, I observe that such submission hold no bearing in the case. 10.7.5 From the records of the case, I find that this is not a case where the subject matter is related with just 01 or 02 B/Es. The importer M/s Adler Mediequip Pvt. Limit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lation 11(f)/10(f) of the CBLR, 2013/2018. For reference, the said regulation is reproduced below:- 'A customs broker shall not withhold information contained in any order, instruction or public notice relating to clearance of cargo or baggage issued by the Customs authorities, as the case may be, from a client who is entitled to such information;' I observe that to climb the benefit of the said notification 50/2017 dated 30.06.2017 and Notification no. 12/2012 dtd. 17.03.2012, the importer has to fulfil condition mentioned in point no. 9 of the said notification 50/2017 dt. 30.06.2017 and point no.5 of notification 12/2012 dtd 17.03.2012, and the said the importer is well aware of the conditions of the said notification as such conditions are to be fulfilled with the jurisdictional Central Excise Division much before the goods are being brought in Customs area for import. Further, this is not the case where the importer has complained of withholding of any information by the CB. From the facts of the case, I observe that this was a case of wrongful appointment of import benefit under notification no 50/2017 dt. 30.06.2017 and Notification no. 12/2012 dtd....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the learned Principal Commissioner on the following grounds: On the one hand, he had found that the appellant CB "did not even cross verify the eligibility criteria to claim notification benefit, importer's declaration and relied completely on the communication received from the importer and has not cross verified the facts" and "could not observe & inform about the discrepancies to the importer or customs authority" at paragraph 10.7.5, and on the other hand, he had held that "this (duty exemption benefit) is more a case of wrong interpretation of the notification benefit which could only be brought out during the examination by the Department and thus it is much beyond the scope of obligations on the CB as prescribed in the CBLR, 2013" at paragraph 10.9 of the impugned order. Such apparent contradiction in the findings of the adjudicating authority in the impugned order, in our view reflects the non-application of mind in deciding the issue by the learned Principal Commissioner for revoking the license of the appellant CB; imposing penalty on them and for forfeiture of security deposit. Therefore, on this ground alone the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 6.5 In respec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct classification of the imported goods and applicable duty thereon, by preparing the check lists and sending it to them before finally filing the B/Es. In the instant case, the non-payment of duty by the importer, on account of claim made for ineligible notification benefit during the disputed period 21.10.2016 to 04.09.2017, was found by the department only on the basis of specific intelligence developed by the Air Preventive Unit/R&I Division of the Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo Complex, Mumbai when similar import took place vide B/E No.3100605 dated 04.09.2017, and hence the appellants CB cannot be found fault for the reason that they did not advise their client importer to comply with the provisions of the Act of 1962. Further, as the duty exemption benefit for imported goods were hitherto have been extended, by the very same customs authorities at the port of import during the relevant point of time, the appellants CB could not have brought it to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (DC) or Assistant Commissioner of Customs (AC). Thus, we are of the considered view that the violation of Regulation 10(d)/ 11(d) ibid, as concluded in the impugned order is not s....