Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Durga Clearing Private Limited Vs Principal Commissioner of Customs (General) (CESTAT Mumbai)
Appeal Number : Customs Appeal No. 88496 of 2018
Date of Judgement/Order : 10/11/2023
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Durga Clearing Private Limited Vs Principal Commissioner of Customs (General) (CESTAT Mumbai)

CESTAT Mumbai held that forfeiture of security deposit justified as Customs Broker failed to act in a proactive manner in fulfilling their obligation as Customs Broker, particularly when the import documents were obtained from the importers through an intermediary.

Facts- The appellants are Customs Broker (CB). A specific intelligence was developed by Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), regarding under-valuation of goods in import of furniture, lighting fixtures, wood treatment chemicals, resins, varnishes, lacquers etc., by two persons through mis-use of various Import-Export Codes (IECs) by taking these on lease/rent from the IEC holders illegally for the purpose of duty evasion. The imported goods were under valuated using dummy IEC importers to avoid duty evasion and by operating behind the scene, they were supplying all documents such as invoices of overseas supplier, packing list, bill of lading and obtaining the goods through their own transport/logistics company with the assistance of Shri Lalit Mange, Director of appellants CB.

On the basis of such offence report/letter received from DRI. MZU, Mumbai, 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 11(a), 11(d), 11(e), 11(m) and 11(n) of CBLR, 2013. Accordingly, he had immediately suspended the CB license of the appellants under Regulation 19.

Subsequently, the Principal Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai, being the licensing authority had passed the impugned order under Regulations 20(7) and 18 ibid, for revoking CB License of the appellants and for forfeiture of entire amount of security deposit. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order, the appellants have preferred this appeal before the Tribunal.

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