Case Law Details
Daroowala Bros & Co Vs Commissioner of Customs (General) (CESTAT Mumbai)
The appeal in the case of Daroowala Bros & Co versus the Commissioner of Customs (General) pertains to the forfeiture of a security deposit following allegations of mis-declaration of goods in shipping bills. The appellant, a customs broker, was involved in the export of woolen carpets under drawback claims, for which mis-declaration regarding specifications and quantity was discovered. This led to proceedings under the Customs Act, 1962, and a forfeiture order based on violations of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013. Despite these violations being found, the adjudicating authority did not revoke the appellant’s customs broker license but proceeded with the forfeiture of the security deposit.
The appellant challenged the decision, arguing that the case was built on the incorrect details in the shipping bills, and they had been cleared of any charges in the related proceedings under the Customs Act. The appellant had requested the licensing authority to defer the decision until the outcome of the Customs Act proceedings was finalized, but this was not granted. Considering the change in circumstances, with the appellant being absolved of all charges in the Customs Act case, the CESTAT found that the initial order for forfeiture should be reconsidered. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the licensing authority for a fresh decision based on the new facts. The appeal was allowed, and the case was sent back for reevaluation.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT MUMBAI ORDER
This appeal, arising from forfeiture of security deposit of M/s Daroowala Bros & Co, as holder of customs broker licence1, under the authority of regulation 18 of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 in order2 of Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai, pertains to handling of two shipping bills no. 6364937/04.06.2008 and 6364944/04.06.2008 for export of ‘floor covering/woolen carpets 80% wool 20% cotton’ under claim for drawback.
2. The export of goods by M/s Globlink Overseas were subjected to proceedings under Customs Act, 1962 for mis-declaration of both specifications as well as quantity. The proceedings against the appellant herein were concluded with the forfeiture of security deposit, even after breach of regulation 13(d), 13(e) and 13(n) were held as proved on the finding that
‘22. I find that three charges for violation of Regulations 13(d), 13(e) & 13(n) have been leveled against the CHA all of which stand proved. I also note that the case against the CHA relates to exports effected in June, 2008, more than six years ago. Taking into account the charges against the CB and lapse of considerable time since occurance of the event, the case does not appear to be grave enough to warrant revocation of the CB’s Licence.’
3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the entire case has been built on the incorrectness of particulars in the shipping bill filed on behalf of the exporter and that, in those proceedings, the adjudicating authority had held the appellant herein to be blemishes. On behalf of the appellant, the adjudication order was placed before us.
4. We have heard Learned Authorized Representative.
5. Considering that the proceedings in which the adjudication process was, ultimately, to clear the appellant had been underway, the appellant herein had requested for deferring the conclusion of the proceedings, now impugned, till the outcome of the adjudication was known which the licensing authority forbore to do with the detriment herein.
6. Considering the altered circumstances of the appellant herein having been relieved of all charges insofar as the proceedings under Customs Act, 1962 was concerned, it would be appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the licensing authority for a fresh decision.
7. The appeal is allowed by way of remand.
(Order pronounced in the open court on 13/12/2024)
Notes:
1 [no. 11/693]
2 [order-in-original no. 87/2014/CAC/CC(G)/PKA-CBS dated 18th July 2014]
Author Bio
