Star India Logistics Vs Principal Commissioner of Customs (General) (CESTAT Mumbai)
CESTAT Mumbai held that appellants Customs Broker (CB) was not handling the export consignment hence it cannot be said that they had violated Regulation 10(d) and 10(n). Thus, revocation of license unjustified.
Facts- The appellant is a Customs Broker (CB) holding a regular CB license issued by the Mumbai Customs under Regulation 7(2) of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2018. On the basis of specific intelligence, it was found that “Red Sanders” (Pterocarpus Santalinus), an endangered species and covered under Appendix-II of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) is being attempted to be exported in one export consignment.
On the basis of an adjudication order/offence report dated 04.11.2015 received from customs investigation authorities, the jurisdictional Principal Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai-I had concluded that there is a prima facie case against the appellants for having contravened Regulations 10(d) and 10(n) of CBLR, 2018. Accordingly, they had initiated show cause proceedings by issue of notice No.19/2023-24 dated 08.06.2023 for initiating inquiry proceedings under Regulation 17 ibid, against violations of CBLR as above.
Upon completion of the inquiry, a report dated 31.10.2023 was submitted by the Inquiry Authority concluding that both the charges framed against the appellants for violation of Regulations 10(d) and 10(n) of CBLR, 2018 have been ‘proved’. Accordingly, the Principal Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai, being the licensing authority had passed the impugned order dated 12.03.2024 under Regulations 17(7), 18 and 14 ibid, for revocation of CB License of the appellants and for forfeiture of entire amount of security deposit, besides imposition of penalty on the appellants. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed.
