The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that regulation 10(n) of Customs Broker Licencing Regulations is not violative In the absence of evidence which proves delay in the duty of the customs broker.
Shri Prakash Shah, Advocate for the appellant and Shri Manoj Kumar, Deputy Commissioner (AR) for the respondent
Shree Simandhar Shipping Service, the appellant challenged the Order no. 113/CAC/PCC(G)/SJ/ CBS dated 10th December 2021 of Principal Commissioner of Customs (Gen), Mumbai. It appeared that the licensing authority invoked the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations (CHALR), 2004 despite Customs Broker Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2013 being operational by then as the events occurred during the erstwhile regulations. The said obligations were incorporated as regulation 11(d), (e) and (m) of Customs Broker Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2013 and regulation 10(d), (e) and (m) of Customs Broker Licensing Regulation (CBLR), 2018.
The charges against the appellant are confined to failing an obligation to advise the client to comply with provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 attended upon with like disregard of obligation to bring non-compliance to notice of designated customs authority, to exercise due diligence in the ascertainment of the correctness of information imparted to a client with reference to clearance of cargo and to discharge responsibilities with speed and efficiency.
Bills of entry for clearance of goods imported by M/s Siddhivinayak Corporation claimed entitlement to avail notification no. 40/2006-Cus dated 1st May 2006 and no. 98/2009-Cus dated 11th September 2009 issued for implementing the ‘duty free import authorisation (DFIA)’ scheme in the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) notified under Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992.
The triggering offence was the import of ‘natural/ alkalized cocoa powder’ against the authorizations, issued under the Foreign Trade Policy permitting the import of ‘maida atta/flour, sugar, liquid sugar etc.’ as enumerated against product code E-5 in the ‘standard input output norms (SION)’ applicable to the scheme, in favour of M/s Parle Products Pvt Ltd and M/s Ravi Foods Pvt for having exported biscuits and transferred thereafter to the importer through an intermediary, M/s Global Exim.
A Coram of Mr C J Mathew, member (technical) and Mr Ajay Sharma, member (judicial) held that “there is no allegation, let alone evidence, that the appellant did not demonstrate speed and efficiency or had wantonly delayed anything as far as the impugned goods are concerned. We find no reason to uphold the finding of the respondent-Commissioner that regulation 10(n) of Customs Broker Licencing Regulations, 2018 had been contravened.”
While allowing the appeal the CESTAT viewed that the revocation of the licence and other detriments have no foundation on which they can be sustained and set aside the impugned order.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to TaxscanAdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
