Page 137 - ELT_1st August 2020_Vol 373_Part 3

2020 ] COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, HYDERABAD v. SYED JAMEEL UDDIN 319
10. This was assailed by the respondent before Customs, Excise and
Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Regional Bench at Hyderabad.
11. The respondent denied violation of the conditions of the licence or
subletting of his licence to Shri S. Uma Mahesh, and contended that the said
statement was obtained from the said individual under duress. He stated that the
prohibition of the operation of the respondent in Bangalore Customs House was
already revoked by the Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore and therefore, the
instant proceedings may also be dropped and the Order-in-Original be set aside.
12. The appellant’s Representative however supported the findings of
the Adjudicating Authority.
13. By the impugned order dated 26-3-2019 in Final Order No.
A/30419/2019, the Tribunal found force in the contention of the Revenue that
the respondent had sublet his licence for shipping the bills in question, but held
that once Shri S. Uma Mahesh retracted the statement during the cross-
examination, the officers of the Revenue should have further questioned him
about the amounts being transferred at Rs. 25,000/- per month when he had cat-
egorically said that he had not paid any amount to the respondent. It also ob-
served that the respondent should have been confronted with the bank transfers
to establish that the licence was indeed sublet to the said Shri S. Uma Mahesh by
the respondent. It therefore gave benefit of doubt to the respondent and held that
he had himself got the shipping bills filed using the services of Shri S. Uma Ma-
hesh. It further held that though the respondent failed in discharging his obliga-
tion under Regulation 11(a) of the Regulations in not verifying the antecedents of
the exporters and Regulation 17(a) in not supervising the work of his employees,
only penalty of Rs. 50,000/- would suffice and that the respondent was entitled
to restoration of his licence. It also set aside the forfeiture of the security deposit
directed by the Adjudicating Authority.
14. Assailing the same, this Appeal is filed.
15. Heard Sri B. Narasimha Sarma, Counsel for the appellant.
16. The Counsel sought to contend that under Regulation 18 of the
Regulations, the competent authority is entitled to revoke the licence of a cus-
toms broker and order for forfeiture of part or whole of the security or impose
penalty in excess of Rs. 50,000/- for violating the regulations and that the Tribu-
nal erred in showing sympathy to the respondent and revoking the order of the
Adjudicating Authority by restoring the respondent’s licence, setting aside the
forfeiture of the security deposit and only imposing penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on
the respondent.
17. A reading of Regulation 18 of the Regulations indicates that the var-
ious options/punishments indicated therein are in the alternative and it is not
mandatory for the Adjudicating Authority to revoke the licence of a Customs
Broker for all infractions of the Regulations. The reason assigned by the Tribunal,
i.e., that there was retraction of the statement made by the witness about sublet-
ting of the licence by the respondent to him stating that there was duress at the
time when the statement was taken from him under Section 108 of the Act, and
the officials of the Revenue had not confronted him with the bank transfers to
establish that the licence was sublet by the respondent to the said Shri S. Uma
Mahesh for consideration, and giving of benefit of doubt to the respondent, can-
not be said to be perverse based on no evidence or contrary to law.
18. We are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal had rightly exer-

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st August 2020  137