Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Sanjay Prabhakar Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi)
Appeal Number : Customs Appeal No. 51402 of 2019
Date of Judgement/Order : 05/09/2023
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Sanjay Prabhakar Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi)

CESTAT Delhi held that revocation of customs broker licence and penalty action thereof on customs broker justified as he duly facilitated export of Prohibited items i.e. Gutkha pouches.

Facts- The appellant is a Customs Broker. The appellant filed a Shipping Bill in the name of M/s Navrang Jewel and Export at the port ICD Loni wherein goods were declared as Pan Masala and other house hold products such as comb, sofa, broom brush etc. The goods were examined and Let Export Order was passed by the proper officer and goods were thereafter dispatched from ICD Loni to Gateway port of Pipavav for further export. However, on information, DRI stopped and further examined the goods at Pipavav, wherein as against the declared pan masala, DRI allegedly found 42,00,000 number of Gutkha pouches – a prohibited item.

Upon completion of inquiry, DRI issued a show cause notice proposing penal action against the appellant. Taking into account the said show cause notice of DRI to be an offence report, Commissioner (Airport & General) suspended the licence of the appellant and issued a show cause notice proposing to hold the appellant responsible for contravention of various provisions under Regulation 10 of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as CBLR, 2013) and revocation of their Customs Broker (C.B.) licence, forfeiture of security and penalty under Regulation 18 of CBLR, 2013. The CB licence of the appellant which was valid till 29.12.2021 was revoked, his security deposit of Rs. 75,000/- was forfeited and a penalty of Rs. 50,000/-was imposed on the appellant.

Conclusion- Held that the confessional statements of the appellant clearly indicate that he was aware that actual exporter was Shri Salim Dola whereas the IEC being used was in the name of Shri Shubham Garg, proprietor of Navrang Jewel and Exports. Sh. Garg in his statement accepted that he had allowed Mehmood, alias Guddu to use his IEC for ₹50,000 per consignment.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031