In a major ruling, the Bangalore bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) quashed the revocation of the customs broker’s license, asserting that the continuation of the prohibition order in violation of rule 11(a) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulation
The appellant, M/s. Global Agencies, who hold a regular customs license broker, was also permitted to operate in Chennai Customs Commissionerate under Regulation 7(2) of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulation ( CBLR ) 2013. On specific intelligence, the officers of Customs Chennai on examination of a consignment filed by the appellant on behalf of the importer M/s. J.J. Enterprises found that some undeclared items were found in the container.
It was also found that the declared value was Rs.6, 53,401/- and on market survey on the undeclared items, the value arrived at Rs.37, 77,700/-. Based on the offense report, the Customs Commissionerate at Chennai issued a prohibition order prohibiting the appellant from working in Chennai Customs Jurisdiction. Based on the notice issued by the Chennai Commissionerate which was adjudicated vide Order-in original 24.11.2017 ordered continuation of prohibition of the customs broker under Regulation 17 of CBLR 2013
Based on this, a show-cause notice was issued by the Commissioner of Customs, Cochin and based on the detailed enquiry, the Commissioner held that the appellant had violated the conditions laid down under Regulation 11(a), 11(d) and 11(n) and accordingly for gross non-compliance of the provisions of Regulations of CBLR 2013, the license was revoked along with forfeiture of security deposit
The counsel for the appellant Mr. Baby M.A submitted that for the offense committed at Chennai, the Order-in-Original dated 24.11.2017 was issued on which they had filed an appeal and the Tribunal vide Final Order was set aside the impugned order.
He placed his reliance on the decision of the Principal Bench in the case of Nitco Logistics Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs ( General ), New Delhi. He also claims that the entire proceedings are barred by limitation as per Regulation 20(1) of the CBLR 2013 as the notice should have been issued within 90 days from the date of the receipt of the offense report. In this case, there is no offense report
The Coram of Dr. Dm. Misara ( Judicial member ) and R. Bhagya Devi ( Technical member ) does not find any merit in upholding the impugned order since the basis appears to be the offense committed at Chennai which has been set aside by the Tribunal Chennai Bench. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
