Page 241 - ELT_1st September 2020_Vol 373_Part 5

2020 ] M.M. LOGISTICS v. COMMR. OF CUS. (AIRPORT & GENERAL), NEW DELHI 679

2018 with the serving of memorandum of charges and appointment of Inquiry
Officer for alleged contravention of Regulations 10(d), 10(e) and 10(m) of Cus-
toms Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018. The report of the Inquiry Officer was
received on 28th January, 2019 following which the appellant herein, after being
placed on due notice, was deprived of his licence.
3. Learned Consultant for the appellant contests the proceedings as
well as the findings by drawing attention to the elapse of time between the issu-
ance of show cause notice under Customs Act, 1962 on 5th September, 2017 and
the receipt of charge sheet on 31st October, 2018. It was also pointed out that
even though there is no prescribed format for the offence report contemplated in
Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018, it was erroneous on the part of
Commissioner of Customs to construe the letter enclosing the show cause notice,
received on 6th August, 2018 to be the offence report and merely to overcome the
deadline specified in Regulation 20 of Customs Broker Licensing Regulations,
2018. It is also contended by him that the alleged deviation from obligation, as
recorded in the findings of the Inquiry Authority and affirmed by the Commis-
sioner of Customs, was not consistent with the enumeration in the relevant regu-
lation. Our attention was also drawn to Instruction No. 450/11-2011-CUS-IV,
dated 25th February, 2011 of the Central Board of Excise & Customs which, while
taking note of goods being cleared without obtaining approval of the Drugs Con-
troller and directing strict compliance, makes it apparent that ‘out of charge’ of
such goods should be withheld pending receipt of such approval.
4. Learned Authorised Representative submits that, as the show cause
notice was the sum and substances of offence report, the appellant was without
any justification to allege that there was a delay in compliance with the require-
ment to serve the memorandum of charges within the stipulated deadline. It was
also submitted that, very often, it is owing to less than diligent handling of im-
port on the part of Customs Brokers that leads to delay in completing investiga-
tion. He, therefore, argued that the plea of leniency is not consistent with a prop-
er administration of the import export system.
5. Though proceedings against the appellant was initiated in connec-
tion with alleged irregularities in one import, the disposal of an appeal against
revocation of license does not permit us the latitude to render a finding on the
allegations pertaining to the seizure/confiscation of goods. We are, therefore,
constrained to restrict ourselves to the correctness, or otherwise, in revoking of
the Customs Broker License under the Regulation concerned.
6. The charges leveled against the appellant are that the mandated ad-
vise was not forthcoming, that the appellant had filed the bill of entry without
insisting upon the various prescribed clearances and that speed and efficiency,
prescribed by the regulations, was also lacking.
7. It is seen from a perusal of the Regulations that the role of the Cus-
toms Broker is to act as an agent and to file the necessary papers for facilitating
clearance. Regulation 10 imposes certain obligations on such customs brokers.
The Regulation pertaining to rendering of proper advise has been wrongly held
to have been breached as the Inquiry Report, along with various evidences, point
out that such advise was indeed furnished to the importers; the non-compliance
with such advise on the part of the importer did not, of itself, suffice for the cus-
toms broker to desist from acting for the importer. Furthermore, the furnishing
of documents, viz., clearance from brand owners, registration with legal metrolo-

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st September 2020  241