Case Law Details
Global Agencies Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Bangalore)
Introduction: In a significant ruling, the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) Bangalore delivered a judgment in favor of M/s. Global Agencies, setting aside the revocation of their customs broker (CB) license. This case, Global Agencies Vs Commissioner of Customs, highlights the critical importance of adhering to the procedural and legal frameworks under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations (CBLR) 2013, particularly rule 11(a).
Detailed Analysis: The crux of the dispute originated from a prohibition order issued by the Chennai Customs Commissionerate against Global Agencies, following the discovery of undeclared items in a consignment filed on behalf of M/s. J.J. Enterprises. This led to the revocation of the CB license by the Commissioner of Customs, Cochin, citing gross non-compliance with regulations 11(a), 11(d), and 11(n) of CBLR 2013.
Global Agencies contested this revocation, emphasizing that the CESTAT had previously set aside a similar prohibition order related to the same offence. They argued that the continuation of the prohibition, and subsequent license revocation, was unjust, especially considering the impact on their business and employees’ livelihoods.
A pivotal point in Global Agencies’ appeal was the argument that the entire proceedings were barred by limitation under Regulation 20(1) of CBLR 2013, which mandates that a notice should be issued within 90 days from the receipt of the offence report. They contended that since the original offence report dated back to July 2017 and the order of prohibition was issued in September 2017, the notice period had expired by December 2017, rendering the proceedings invalid.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
