Page 136 - ELT_1st August 2020_Vol 373_Part 3

318 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

[Judgment per : M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J.]. - This CEA is filed under
Section 130A(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) challenging the
order dated 26-3-2019 in Final Order No. A/30419/2019 in Appeal No.
C/31278/2018 [2019 (369) E.L.T. 1053 (Tri.-Hyd.)].
2. The respondent was a Customs Broker originally registered as Cus-
toms House Agent under Custom House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004.
His licence was renewed up to 22-4-2008. The officers of the Directorate of Reve-
nue Intelligence (DRI), Bangalore investigated a case pertaining to M/s. Logo
Trading and M/s. Azomatrix Impex based in Coimbatore who misdeclared “re-
jected/torn/damaged items of leather like material with negligible value” as
100% pure leather items with a mala fide intention to claim drawback.
3. After investigating the matter, the officers of DRI seized the goods
and issued a show cause notice to the concerned persons through the Assistant
Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore.
4. It is the contention of the Department that the respondent had at-
tended to customs work on behalf of one of the fraudulent exporters by name
M/s. Shakthishka Exports and that the person who actually handled the export
one Shri S. Uma Mahesh, a G-Card holder, was investigated by DRI.
5. The said individual in his statement under Section 108 of the Act
stated that he was the Managing Partner of M/s. V.D. Logistics which has 20
staff and that he was using the Customs Broker licence of the respondent from
January, 2010 to process exports and that he was paying the respondent Rs.
25,000/- per month through NEFT to the account of the respondent.
6. The Department then issued a show cause notice to the respondent
under Regulation 18 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 (for
brevity, ‘the Regulations’) proposing revocation of the licence of the respondent
and forfeiture of part or whole of the security and imposition of penalty not ex-
ceeding Rs. 50,000/- on the respondent.
7. The respondent contested the show cause notice stating that he him-
self filed the shipping bills on two importers after verifying IEC with the JDGFT,
the addresses of the parties and the CST number. He also contended that no
drawback was received by M/s. Shatishka Exports since the goods were seized
by the Customs and subsequently adjudicated.
8. During the personal hearing before the Adjudicating Authority, the
respondent cross-examined Shri S. Uma Mahesh who had said that he was using
the licence of the respondent but in the cross-examination, the said S. Uma Ma-
hesh retracted his statement regarding paying Rs. 25,000/- per month to the re-
spondent for using the licence and stated that he had signed the statement before
the DRI under threat.
9. However, the Adjudicating Authority came to the conclusion that
the respondent had sublet the broker licence to the said Shri S. Uma Mahesh for
Rs. 25,000/- per month, and revoked the licence of the respondent invoking Reg-
ulation 18 read with Regulation 20 of the Regulations. He also ordered forfeiture
of the entire security deposit collected at the time of issue of licence apart from
levying penalty of Rs. 50,000/- under Regulation 22 of the Regulations on the
respondent.

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st August 2020  136