TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 933
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by the M/s. DINCOMCI 01 BP E41, Abidjan in a 40 feet container TCKU6591010. The appellant was issued with a showcase notice dated 25.06.2020 under Regulation 17 of Custom Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018 alleging that the appellant had failed to fulfill their obligation and comply with the provisions of CBLR, 2018 and committed misconduct in the transaction of business for the purpose of Customs Act, 1962 in terms of Regulation 10(d), 10(e), 10(i), 10(m). 10(q) and 13(2) of CBLR, 2018. These allegations were made with regard to claim of No Objection Certificate (NOC) made by the importer for return of imported goods based on the reason of delay in shipment was not bona fide and true to the facts and the custom brokers M/s. Cargo Links were in possession of copy of the original sale contract dated 01.05.2019, which they failed to bring to the notice of the Department and therefore the provisions of Regulations of CBLR, 2018 have been violated. In this regard the Inquiry Report dated 23.09.2020 submitted by the inquiry officer in terms of Regulation 17(5) based on the above show cause notice dated 25.06.2020 had implicated the appellant for non-compliance of provisions of Regulat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n conclusion for cancelling the original contract stating the delay in shipment period and also seeking re-export permission from Customs Authorities; 11.07.2019:Importer forwarded the trail of above mails mentioned to the Appellant and requested to do the needful in the matter, this mail was sent by Importer to Appellant; 17.07.2019: Importer request to the overseas supplier to send a revised contract for submitting to Customs for returning the cargo; 24.07.2019 Importer informed the Liner that they have to file letter with Customs for call back of container /cargo, as per the advice of the Customs Broker; 26.07.2019: Appellant forwarded draft format to the Importer for callback of container by the shipper/ liner for submission to Customs giving the reasons of delay in shipment; Importer sent the signed letter of the Liner (MAERSK) to the Appellant for submission to the Customs; 29.07.2019 Submission by letter by Liner to the Customs to issue NOC for callback of the container, on the grounds of delay in shipment and not meeting the terms of the contract; 02.08.2019: Importer forwards a copy of sale contract dated 01.04.2019 showing the shipment period as 10th May 2019 and a letter....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s above and the Importer was well within his legal right to cancel the import cargo for the economic reasons, the Appellant had no reason to either suspect or even assume any illegality or noncompliance on the part of the Importer, which would necessitate bringing it to the notice of the Customs Authorities and such a bona fide act cannot be held against the Appellant to invoke regulation 10(m) of the CBLR, 2018; the cross-examination of Shri. Rajkumar, Manager Finance of RCCPL, would clearly evidence that the Appellant has not provided any advice contrary to legal provisions and in contravention of the provisions of Customs Act, 1962 and the allied laws. The Respondent Commissioner however without appreciating such clarifications in the correct perspective concluded the proceedings in complete disregard to the procedure prescribed under Regulation 17 of CBLR, 2018. 7. The learned counsel submits that; the confirmation of charge of non-fulfilment of obligations under Regulation 10(m) to impose penalty on Appellant is contrary to records /evidence on record, against the oral evidences recorded during the inquiry proceedings and merely based on self-serving assumptions and thus re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t import documents /records as obtained from the Importer and duly discharged their duties under regulations of CBLR, 2018. Therefore, the self- contradictory impugned order does not sustain both in law and against the facts of the case. 11. The learned counsel further submits that; the Appellant, a licensed custom broker, relies on the following Supreme Court decisions wherein it was held that the duty of the assessee Appellant ends with disclosure of primary facts and they need not educate the officer about the possible inferences that can be drawn from such disclosure. a. Calcutta Discount Co. v. ITO, 2002-TIOL-550-SCIT-CB also reported in 1961 (41) ITR 191 (SC), wherein it was held that as long as primary facts are within the knowledge of the Department, the assessee is under no duty to disclose inferential facts or legal inferences which may be drawn from such facts. It is not the duty of the assessee, the Court held, to educate the assessing officer about the inferences of fact or law, which the officer may draw from primary facts brought on record by the taxpayer. b. Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd v. ITO, 2002TIOL-573- SC-IT also reported in (1977) 106....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....CIF less than Rs.680 per kg for broken Kernels and less than Rs.720 per kg for whole Kernels and also change in the rate of duty from 45% BCD to 70% BCD, the custom broker had facilitated the importer in obtaining the no objection certificate (NOC) on the grounds that there is a delay in shipment by the shipping line as evident from the communication /documents submitted by the Appellant-Customs Broker. We find that in the proceeding against the importer the Adjudicating authority has taken a lenient view and allowed the re-export on the following grounds; "31. However, although investigation very clearly evidences that the claim for NOC made by the noticee for return of subject goods based on the reason of delay in shipment was not bona fide and true to the facts, I am inclined to take a lenient view in the matter considering that it cannot be forced upon anyone to import goods into the country contrary to their wish or against their business proposition. The noticee has made a prayer for re-export of goods and in this context, it merits to be considered that it may not be prudent for anyone to import the goods and bring, into the country for business purpose, in which a ....