The Mumbai Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in the case of Akbarali Mohemedali Mukadam Versus Principal Commissioner of Customs quashed the order revoking customs broker license for delay in inquiry proceedings.
The bench of S.K. Mohanty (Judicial Member) and M.M. Parthiban (Technical Member) has observed that there is definitely delay in conduct of inquiry proceedings and that too for the import transactions for which the offence was detected in February, 2021, the order of revocation of appellant’s Customs Broker license has been passed on 12.05.2023.
The bench noted that the Principal Commissioner explained that the delay is on account of the inquiry proceedings in which the appellants CB had taken time to give their written submissions, but such delay cannot be fatal to outcome of injury and cannot neutralize the actions of omission and commission already committed by the Customs Broker.
The appellant is a Customs Broker holding a regular Customs Broker license issued by the Mumbai Customs under erstwhile Regulation 10 of Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984 (CHALR) and now Regulation 7(2) of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2018. In pursuance of specific intelligence received by Nhava Sheva Preventive Unit (NSPU), R&I division of Principal Commissioner of Customs(Preventive), regarding customs duty evasion in import consignment covered in Container No.CLHU8380450 lying in Seabird CFS was put on hold and further investigation ware carried out.
It was found that the import consignment was imported by M/s Empara Multiventures Private Limited vide Bill of Entry.
The goods declared in the Bill of Entry was 232500 pieces of ‘back cover’ (mobile accessories) with a declared value of Rs.6,00,548. During the course of examination under panchnama proceedings, it was found that the imported consignment contained 2,80,000 pieces of ‘tempered glass screen’ of value re-determined as Rs.8,23,608.
Therefore, the department had concluded that there was a gross mis-declaration of description and quantity of goods, in the import consignment for which the Bill of Entry was filed through the appellants CB, and had initiated further investigation.
It was also found that in one more import consignment was filed by some unauthorized person to whom the appellants CB had handed over the dongle for monetary consideration.
On the basis of offence report received from NSPU/R&I on 22.07.2021, the jurisdictional Principal Commissioner of Customs had concluded that there is a prima facie case against the appellants for having contravened Regulations 1(4), 10(d), 10(e), 10(n) and 13(12) of CBLR, 2018.
The issue raised was whether the appellant Customs Broker has fulfilled all his obligations as required under CBLR, 2018 or not.
The tribunal stated that the Customs broker has already suffered a lot, as they were out of his normal business during such period that their license was suspended. It is also noted that the livelihood of Customs broker and the employees is dependent upon the functioning of Customs broker’s business. The punishment suffered by being out of Customs broker’s business for long period of is more than sufficient to mitigate the case of violations or contraventions of CBLR, 2018.
The CESTAT noted that the prescribed time under CBLR for timely completion of inquiry proceedings right from the beginning i.e., issue of SCN within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of offence report, submission of inquiry report within 90 days of issue of SCN, passing of order by the Principal Commissioner of Customs within 90 days of receipt of inquiry report was neither followed nor given credence to.
The CESTAT held that inordinate delay in the inquiry proceedings has not been properly explained in the order; and the Principal Commissioner had put the entire blame on the Customs Broker.
The tribunal by modifying the order for imposition of penalty, imposed a penalty of Rs.5,000/- on the appellants for violation of Regulation 10(e) on account of their failure to handle documents exercising due diligence, in filing import declarations.
Case Details
Case Title: Akbarali Mohemedali Mukadam Versus Principal Commissioner of Customs
Case No.: Customs Appeal No. 86792 of 2023
Date: 05.12.2024
Counsel For Appellant: R.K. Tomar
Counsel For Respondent: Krishna Murari Azad
