Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
C.C.- New Delhi vs M/S Rama Kant Sahu on 10 November, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
PRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. IV
Appeal No. C/52343/2015-CU[DB]
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 34/NK/Policy/2015 dated 16.03.2015, passed by the Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi].
For approval and signature:
Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
Honble Shri V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical)
1
Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
No
2
Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
NO
3
Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
Seen
4
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Yes
C.C.- New Delhi .Applicants
Vs.
M/s Rama Kant Sahu .Respondent
Appearance:
Sh.K. Poddar, Departmental Representative for the Applicants Sh.Rama kant Sahu , for the Respondent CORAM:
Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Honble Shri V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing: 10.11.2016 FINAL ORDER NO. 55961 /2016-CU(DB) Per V. Padmanabhan The present appeal filed by Revenue is directed against the order dated 16.03.2015, passed by the Commissioner (Customs), New Delhi. The dispute is with reference to the revoking of CHA licence issued to the respondent under the Customs broker Regulations, 2013. In the impugned Order, Commissioner (Customs) revoked the suspension of the Customs Broker licence. Revenue is in appeal against such revocation.
2. A case of outright smuggling and concealment was booked against M/s Shivani Industries, Sonepat, Haryana. The said importer had filed Bill of Entry through the respondent (acting as CHA) at ICD Tughlakabad and declared Chinese tyres as the import goods. However, the container was found to contain undeclared cigarettes of Dunhill and Mond brands. Scotch whisky was also found along with tyres. The Customs department suspended the custom broker licence of the respondent and initiated an enquiry. On receipt of the enquiry report submitted by the Assistant Commissioner (Customs Import), the ld. Commissioner passed the impugned order. He concluded that the respondent has not contravened the provisions of Customs Broker regulation 11(a), 11(d), 11(n) and 17(9) of the CBLR 2013. Accordingly, he revoked the suspension of the Customs Broker licence. Aggrieved by the above order, Revenue has filed the present appeal, on the ground that the enquiry authority appointed under regulation 20(2) has concluded that the respondent is guilty of omissions and commissions in terms of Regulation 11(a), 11(d), 11(n) and 17(9). Accordingly, their submission is that the respondent customs broker licence of the respondent deserved to be revoked and the adjudicating authority has erred in not doing the same.
3. We heard Shri K. Poddar, learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue as well as Shri Ramakant Sahu, CHA who appeared in person and filed return submissions.
4. The respondent Customs Broker has been implicated in the proceedings undertaken by the Revenue under the Customs Broker Regulation 2013, in a case of outrights smuggling and concealment detected against the importer, M/s Shivani Industries, Sonepat. The allegation against the Customs broker is that they have failed to obtain an authorization from the importer under Regulation 11(a); failed to exercise due intelligence as required under Regulation 11 (n); failed to verify the antecedent of the importer as required under 11(n) and also failure exercise supervision to our employee under regulation 17(9).
5. The enquiry authority in his report dated 07.07.2015 concluded that the respondent has contravened various Regulations as above. However, the adjudicating authority took a different view and in the impugned order, absolved the respondent of all such contraventions. With reference to regulation 11 (a), he has held that the respondent has obtained the requisite authorization after meeting the proprietor of the importer, who has given his consent for filling the Bill of Entry. In respect of regulation 11(d), his findings are that the sequence of events doesnt suggest any possibility of connivance of the respondent with the importer in mis-declaration of goods. He has also observed that even the customs officers could not detect the mis-declaration of the importer and therefore, one cannot expect a customs broker to suspect such mis-declaration.
In respect of the Regulation 11(n), the adjudicating authority has found that the importer has joined the investigation and hence he has taken the view that no contravention of this regulation is established. He has further observed that the conduct of Shri Suman kumar Jha, G- Card holder of the respondent, has been found satisfactory and hence, there has been no contravention of Regulation 17(9).
6. We find that, even though the enquiry authority has taken the view that the respondent has contravened various provisions of the Custom Broker Regulations, the adjudicating authority has given detailed reasons for taking a different view and holding that no such contraventions can be attributed to the respondent. Having gone through the records of this case, we find no reasons to take a different view. Hence, the impugned order does not merit any interference and is upheld.
7. In line with the above discussions, the Revenue appeal is dismissed.
[Operative part pronounced in the Open Court] (Archana Wadhwa) Member (Judicial) (V.Padmanabhan) Member (Technical) RS 2 C/52343/2015-CU(DB)