Case Law Details
Shree Simandhar Shipping Service Vs Principal Commissioner of Customs (General) (CESTAT Mumbai)
CESTAT Mumbai held that there are no allegations/ evidence that demonstrate that the customs broker didn’t demonstrate speed and efficiency in respect of the impugned goods and hence there is no contravention of regulation 10(n) of Customs Broker Licencing Regulations, 2018
Facts-
The appellant challenged the order 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.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
