Case Law Details
Ajay Overseas Shipping Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Bangalore)
In the case of M/s. Ajay Overseas Shipping versus the Commissioner of Customs, the appellant challenges the revocation of their Customs Broker (CB) license. The revocation was based on allegations of misuse of the Transfer of Residence (TR) facility by certain cargo companies in collusion with the appellant and other customs brokers. The investigation found that consignments brought in the name of passengers contained goods such as toy cars, soap, milk powder, etc., which were not bona fide baggage. The premises of the appellant were searched, incriminating documents were found, and a show cause notice was issued, leading to the revocation of the CB license, forfeiture of the security deposit, and imposition of a penalty.
The appellant contests the legality of the proceedings, arguing that the documents relied upon by the adjudication authority did not comply with the requirements of the Customs Act, 1962, and the Indian Evidence Act, 1882. They also claim that they were not given the opportunity for cross-examination as requested. Additionally, the appellant argues that they fulfilled their obligation under Regulation 10(d) of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulation, 2018 by advising their clients to comply with the law and reporting violations to customs authorities when necessary. They assert that they had no knowledge of the illegal activities until after the baggage declarations were filed.
The appellant further contends that the allegations of violation of Regulation 10(e) of the CBLR 2018 are unfounded, as they exercised due diligence in verifying the information provided by their clients. They claim that any omissions were due to lack of knowledge rather than negligence. The appellant disputes the imposition of penalties and the revocation of their license, arguing that the evidence against them is insufficient and that they have been denied procedural fairness.
In response, the Revenue’s authorized representative defends the findings of the adjudication authority, asserting that the appellant was aware of the illegal activities and failed to comply with regulatory requirements. They argue that the evidence, including email communications retrieved from the appellant’s computer, supports the allegations against them. The authorized representative contends that the refusal of cross-examination was justified and that the penalties imposed were appropriate given the seriousness of the violations.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
