A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court has recently refused to condone revenue’s delay of 309 days in filing the appeal against the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) that reduced the penalty imposed on Customs Broker Licence of the respondent to forfeiture of security deposit.
The allegation against the respondent was that he had failed to verify the antecedents and correctness of the Import-Export Code No., the identity of his client and the functioning of his client at the declared address. It appears that the allegation against the importer was that it had overvalued the consignment imported for making fraudulent drawback claims.
Agents for the importer-exporter for the use of transacting business are required to acquire a licence with the National Academy of Customs, Indirect Taxes and Narcotics (NACIN). To regulate the licensing of customs brokers, the Government of India has introduced Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2018.
Harpreet Singh, counsel for the appellant-revenue, submitted that the regulations contemplate two penalties – one, being revocation of licence and forfeiture of security; and the second, being penalty.
He also submitted that the question in the present appeal is covered by the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Customs (General) v. KVS Cargo. In the said case, the Court had refused to entertain the appeal because the role ascribed to the custom broker was one of carelessness and negligence.
He further submitted that, “Any order by the learned CESTAT imposing a measure of forfeiture of security only is not permissible.”
At this instance, the Division Bench deemed it necessary to decide whether the delay in filing the same is required to be condoned and observed that the present appeal was filed on 30.07.2019, which was after the delay of 307 days.
The submissions made in this regard were perused by the Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan held that, “As is apparent from the above, the application seeking
Condonation of delay is bereft of any particulars”, observing that none of the reasons stated are relevant and reasonable.
The bench also noted the infirmity caused by lack of service of notice on the respondent-assessee, along with the lack of sufficient reason for the delay in filing and rejected the appeal.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
