The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), quashed revocation of Customs Broker (CB) licence and observed that disciplining of ‘customs broker’ not be entered into lightly nor receded from hastily.
The appeal of M/s Sainath Clearing Agency, stemmed from the order of Principal Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai revoking the said licence and forfeiting security deposit under regulation 14 of Customs Broker Licencing Regulations, 2018 while imposing penalty of ₹ 50,000 under regulation 18 of Customs Broker Licencing Regulations, 2018 on the finding that acts of omission and commission on their part, in handling bill of entry no. 5126157/08.02.2018 for imports effected by M/s Twister Enterprises, had been in breach of obligations devolving on them by regulation 10 of Customs Broker Licencing Regulations, 2018.
The imports were found to have been misdeclared and it was revealed during investigations that documentation for entitling import by M/s Twister Enterprises had been secured in the name of one Atul Dilip Baviskar who claimed to be a helper in a construction venture and denied any knowledge of, or wherewithal for, undertaking imports.
It was contended by the Counsel for appellant that every notice of hearing had been responded to and the presence of witnesses was essential to establishing that the charges were unfounded considering that the obligations, alleged to have been breached, are too broadly expressed for fitment with actual operation as customs broker. He also submitted that breach, if any, does not warrant extreme measures routinely resorted to by licencing authorities.
A Two-Member Bench comprising CJ Mathew, Technical Member and Ajay Sharma, Judicial Member observed that “A tendency to be less than meticulous in drafting of charges is evident here and proceedings do acquire the characteristic of trivializing the institution of ‘custom broker’; if they are to perform the vital role expected of them, resort to Custom Broker Licencing Regulations, 2018 has to be deliberated upon by licencing authorities in the context of each incident of breach of obligation. Disciplining of ‘customs broker’ is not be entered into lightly nor receded from hastily.”
Setting aside the revocation of customs broker licence the Bench concluded that “That the appellant had not interacted with the proprietor of the importing entity is on record; consequently, it would not be wrong to conclude that the several documents of identity and location had not been verified. Though that, of itself, may not be taken as having contributed to misdeclaration, it is, nonetheless, a breach of obligation.”
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
