Jaiswal Import Cargo Services Limited Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi)
CESTAT Delhi held that revocation of Customs Broker License by Customs authorities not sustainable since there is no violation of Regulation 10(b), 10(d) and 10(n) of CBLR, 2018 as alleged in the impugned order. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
Facts- The appellant is a Customs Broker. A specific intelligence was developed that M/s. Tanu Trading had imported certain cosmetic items vide warehousing Bill of Entry dated 09.12.2022, showing their intention for re-export of the goods u/s. 69 of the Customs Act, 1962. However, instead of depositing the said goods in the bonded warehouse, the said goods were being diverted to local market for home consumption. Accordingly, the CB license was suspended vide order-in-original dated 16.06.2023 under Regulation 16(1) of the CBLR, 2018. A show cause notice dated 04.09.2023 was issued to the CB and on receipt of the Inquiry report dated 28.11.2023, and vide the impugned order dated 23.02.2024, the CB license was revoked. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has filed the present appeal.
Conclusion- Held that the persons controlling the importer firm had acted on their own accord to defraud the revenue, and there is no allegation or evidence that the appellant had advised or aided their nefarious activity. In this context, we take support of the Supreme Court’s judgment in Collector of Customs, Cochin vs Trivandrum Rubber Works Ltd., [1999 -2-SC 553] wherein the Hon’ble Court held that the Customs Broker is an agent for only limited purpose of arranging release of goods and once the goods are cleared, he has no further function and he is not liable for any action of the importer. Accordingly, we find that there was no violation of Regulation 10(n) of CBLR, 2018.
