Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.28 seconds)Section 10 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Section 60 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Section 18 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Commr.Of Customs vs M/S K.M.Ganatra & Co. on 14 January, 2016
12. We note that the appellant has not been able to furnish adequate
evidence to justify his innocence. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Commissioner of Customs v KM Ganatra and Company in Civil
Appeal number 2940 of 2008 had held that the Customs Broker is
supposed to safeguard the interest of both the importers and the customs.
A lot of trust is kept in the CHA both by the import- export community as
well as by government agencies. To ensure appropriate discharge of such
trust, the relevant regulations are prescribed, which lists out the obligations
of the Customs House Agent (now Customs Broker). Any contravention of
such obligation, even without intent would be sufficient to invite upon the
CHA/CB punishment as listed in the Regulations. We also find that there is
nothing in the defence of the appellant to indicate as to how he ensured
compliance of the Regulation said to be contravened. Government evidence
furnished through Bhutan agencies, as well as failure of any remittance
received is good enough for reason to establish delinquency/complacency
in the matter, on the part of the Customers Broker. The fact that details of
export documents tendered, do not match with the reports received from
Bhutan Customs vis-a-vis with the export documents is a clear pointer to
the anomalous situation. The Customs Broker has not been able to prove
10
Customs Appeal No.75278 of 2023
his innocence. His culpability is evident.
Patiala Golden Coop. Trans. Society ... vs State Transport Commi. Punjab on 22 November, 2016
4. The details are mismatching in terms of OTY, description, value and even date
wrt Table A vis-à-vis Table B above. There is no evidence that BRC has realized
nor is anything favorable bought on record in this regard by the CB, who was given
the opportunity. The CB had the opportunity to ask for cross examination of
transporter in this case 'V' Trans', V. Transport' indulged in export of aforesaid
consignments to substantiate his claim of genuine export. In the submission dated
26/10/2021 the CB while stating the facts of the case has himself at point 8(vii)
stated that Shri Ram Bhagat Sharma, proprietor of M/s NMT has admitted the guilt
and started payment of GST so evaded by mis-declaration. Further CB vide
submission dated 26.10.2021 at Para 4(A)(iii), has claimed that he came to know
during investigation conducted by DGGI about the fraud. Vide the same
submission at Para 5, the CB has stated that, Moreover, this is a case of evasion
of CGST /SGST under GST Act 2017 by mis-declaration. From this, it is ample
clear admission that a fraud has taken place. All the above points discussed
circumstantially corroborate the allegation in SCN that the goods were not
exported properly to the destination. The provisions for export and claiming GST
benefit have breached based on the circumstantial details available, before the
Inquiry Officer and subsequently the declaration of GST in shipping bill has been
9
Customs Appeal No.75278 of 2023
breached. This infers that there is violation of Section 50(2) and 50(3) of The
Custom Act, 1962. Also, any violation of allied act is duly considered under CBLR
2018. As per regulation 10(d) of CBLR, 2018 a Customs Broker shall advise his
client to comply with the provisions of the Act, other allied Acts and the rules and
regulations thereof, and in case of non-compliance, shall bring the matter to the
notice of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of
Customs, as the case may be. So the claim of CB at submission dated 26.10.2021
at Para 5, it is case of GST violation so this cannot be treated as offence under the
Custom Act, 1962 and there is no violation of CBLR, 2018; is not right.
Export Trade Corporation Ltd., Sanjeev ... vs Commissioner Of Customs on 25 May, 2004
As held by the Delhi High Court in
the case of Asthiana Corporation Services v Commissioner of
Customs IGI.(2014.(30.) ELT161.) punishment to be meted out should
be in proportion to the gravity and nature of infarction by the CB. The
licence is the bread and butter of the Broker, it is his livelihood, besides
giving employment to a few others. Revocation of a license is a grave
punishment as it deprives, the person concerned of his means of a living
and therefore, such revocation can only be justified in extremely grave and
serious matters. In the circumstances of the present case, we feel that
Customs Broker license has now been under revokation for almost 2 years
plus and the CHA deprived of business and livelihood.
1