SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Online)(CESTAT) 1034

CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE

TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI

REGIONAL BENCH

Customs Appeal No. 85501 of 2022

(Arising out of Order-in-Original CAO No. 139/CAC/PCC(G)/SJ/CBS(Adj) dated

28.01.2022 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs (General),

Mumbai-I)

M/s. Hayatt Shipping Pvt. Ltd.

Appellant

Room No.20, 3rd Floor, Kashmiri House,

20/22, M.A. Sarang Marg,

Dongri, Mumbai 400 009.

Vs.

Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai Respondent

New Custom House, Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400 001.

Appearance:

Shri Anil Balani, Advocate, for the Appellant

Shri

Sydney

D’Silva,

Additional

Commissioner,

Authorised

Representative for the Respondent

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. SANJIV SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

HON’BLE DR. SUVENDU KUMAR PATI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Date of Hearing: 23.01.2023

Date of Decision: 23.01.2023

FINAL ORDER NO. A/85308/2023

PER: SANJIV SRIVASTAVA

This appeal is directed against Order-in-Original CAO No.

139/CAC/PCC(G)/SJ/CBS(Adj) dated 28.01.2022 passed by the

Principal Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai-I, holding

as follows:-

I, Principal Commissioner of Customs (General), in exercise of

the power conferred upon me under Regulation 17(7) of the

CBLR, 2018, pass the following order:

(i) I hereby impose penalty of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty

Thousand only) on M/s. Hayatt Shipping Pvt. Ltd., CB No.

11/396 [PAN No. AAAFA3866E) under Regulation 18 of the

CBLR, 2018.

C/85501/2022

2

(ii) I hereby order for forfeiture of entire amount of security

deposit furnished by the CB, under Regulation 14 of the CBLR,

2018.

(iii) The CB License No.11/396 is ordered to be revoked under

Regulation 14 of the CBLR, 2018.

(iv) I hereby order that the CB surrender the original License as

well as all the 'F', 'G' & 'H' cards issued there under immediately

This order is passed without prejudice to any other action which

may be taken against the Customs Broker and their employees

under the Customs Act, 1962, or any other act for the time being

in force in the Union of India.”

2.1

Appellant is a Customs Broker having Customs Broker

Licence No. 11/396 (PAN No. AAAFA3866E). Information was

gathered that an import consignment of toys with misdeclaration

and concealment of cosmetics inside was attempted to be

cleared for home consumption with intent to evade customs duty

and other statutory provisions by M/s. Global Enterprises under

Bill of Entry No. 6026676 dated 18.04.2018 at Navkar

Corporation Ltd., JNPT, who has filed the said Bill of Entry.

Proceedings were initiated against the importer and against the

appellant – Customs Broker for revocation of their licence. The

licence of the Customs Broker was suspended vide order No.

42/2020-21

dated

16.02.2021

under

the

provisions

of

Regulation 16(1) of Custom Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018

and

the

said

suspension

was

revoked

pending

inquiry

proceedings

under

Regulation

17

of

CBLR,

2018

by

Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai vide order No.

52/2020-21 dated 15.03.2021 read with corrigendum dated

27.07.2021. A show cause notice dated 15.03.2021 was issued

to the Customs Broker under Regulation 17(1) of CBLR asking

them to show cause as to why the licence bearing No.11/396

issued to them should not be revoked and security deposit not

forfeited and/or penalty should not be imposed on them under

Regulation 14 read with Regulations 17 & 18 of CBLR, 2018.

Inquiry was made and the Inquiry Officer vide his report dated

C/85501/2022

3

16.09.2021 held as to the charges made against the Customs

Broker for violation of Regulations 10(a), 10(d), 10(e), 10(m)

and 10(n). Appellant contested the inquiry report and filed

written submissions vide letter dated 29.10.2021. After

considering

the

submissions,

Principal

Commissioner

has

proceeded to decide as per the impugned order referred in para

1 above. Aggrieved appellant has filed this appeal.

3.1

We have heard Shri Anil Balani, Advocate for the appellant

and Shri Sydney D’Silva, Additional Commissioner, Authorised

Representative for the Revenue.

3.2

Arguing for the appellant, learned counsel submits as

follows:-

There is no reference to any Offence Report in the above

orders.

The Enquiry Notice was issued on 15.03.2021 (Ex.-D). It

refers to and relies upon statements of the following

persons:-

(i) Mohd. Arfat Mehmood Mukadam, Director of the Appellants;

(ii) Santosh D. Gunjal, the person who referred the work;

(iii) Sahadeo B. Rade, Proprietor of Global Enterprise, the

importer firm;

(iv) Chandrashekar C. Rane;

(v) Irfan Popatiya; and

(vi) Amjad Bakall

In Advocate's letter dated 9.8.2021 (Ex.-E) (on page 92) It

is recorded that even the Enquiry Notice does not refer to

any Offence Report.

Advocate's letter dated 11.08.2021 (Ex-F) records that

statement of representative of The Greater Bombay Co-op.

Bank Ltd. and mail of the Branch Manager of the said Bank

were never supplied. It was prayed that cross-examination

C/85501/2022

4

of all persons must be granted after supplying the said

documents.

In Advocate's letter dated 29.10.2021 (Ex-H) application for

cross- examination of 7

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top