Page 239 - ELT_1st September 2020_Vol 373_Part 5

2020 ] M.M. LOGISTICS v. COMMR. OF CUS. (AIRPORT & GENERAL), NEW DELHI 677

of one Shri Harish Goyal as also Shri Purshottam another CHA was recorded,
who deposed that the appellant was involved in the import of fire crackers. Dur-
ing the course of cross-examination Shri Harish Goyal retracted from the state-
ment and deposed that it was not true. No statement of the appellant was rec-
orded by the investigating officers. However, he had given letter to the Customs
submitting that he has no role to play in the said smuggling of Chinese crackers.
3. On the above basis, proceeding were initiated against the appellant
resulting in passing of the present impugned orders.
4. After hearing both the sides, I find that apart from the statement of
Shri Harish Goyal, there is virtually no other evidence to establish that the appel-
lant was, in any case, associated with the import of the goods in question, neither
the bill of entry was filed by him. The entire case of the Revenue is based upon
the retracted statements of the co noticees. It is well-established law that the
statements of the co-noticees, unless corroborated in material particulars by in-
dependent evidence, do not constitute the legal evidence. As such, I find no justi-
fication for imposition of penalty upon the appellant. The same is, accordingly,
set aside and appeal is allowed with consequential relief.
(Dictated and pronounced in open Court)

_______

2020 (373) E.L.T. 677 (Tri. - Del.)

IN THE CESTAT, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
[COURT NO. IV]
S/Shri Anil Choudhary, Member (J) and C.J. Mathew, Member (T)
M.M. LOGISTICS
Versus
COMMR. OF CUS. (AIRPORT & GENERAL), NEW DELHI
Final Order No. C/A/50635/2020-CU (DB), dated 10-2-2020 in Appeal No.
C/51940/2019-DB
Customs Broker’s License - Revocation of - Allegation that broker filed
bill of entry without insisting upon various prescribed clearances or with pre-
scribed speed and efficiency - Role of Customs Broker is to act as an agent and
to file necessary papers for facilitating clearance - Not prescribed in any part of
statute, or regulations framed thereunder, that required documents were to be
filed along with bill of entry - Such deficiency not illegal and could have been
rectified before ‘out of charge’ granted - Allegation that broker did not demon-
strate desired level of diligence and efficiency too vague, and lacking in objec-
tivity, for ascertainment without specificity - Neither Inquiry Authority nor
Commissioner of Customs scrutinized documentary and oral evidence for ar-
riving at such a conclusion - Time-line not complied with - Order set aside -
Regulations 10, 14, 17 and 20 of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018.
[paras 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11]
Customs Broker’s License - Revocation of - Timeline for completion of
proceedings - Receipt of offence report intended to bring breaches to the
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st September 2020  239