2023 Supreme(Online)(CESTAT) 493
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE
TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI
REGIONAL BENCH
Customs Appeal No. 85930 of 2022
(Arising out of Order-in-Original CAO No. 147/CAC/PCC(G)/SJ/CBS Adj dated
28.03.2022 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs (General),
Mumbai-I)
M/s. Geeta Vijay Logistics
Appellant
138, Agrawal Trade Centre,
Plot No.62, Sector 11, CBD Belapur,
Navi Mumbai 400 614.
Vs.
Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai Respondent
New Custom House, Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400 001.
Appearance:
Shri N.D. George, Advocate, for the Appellant
Shri
S.K.
Hatangadi,
Assistant
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: 24.01.2023
Date of Decision: 24.01.2023
FINAL ORDER NO. A/85153/2023
PER: SANJIV SRIVASTAVA
This appeal is directed against Order-in-Original CAO No.
147/CAC/PCC(G)/SJ/CBS Adj dated 28.03.2022 passed by the
Principal Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai-I. By the
impugned order, Principal Commissioner has held 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. Geeta Vijay Logistics, CB No. 11/2391
[PAN No. AWIPS1442CCH001) under Regulation 18 of the CBLR,
2018.
C/85930/2022
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.11/2391 is ordered to be revoked under
Regulation 14 of the CBLR, 2018.
(iv) 1 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.
2.2
An intelligence was gathered that one M/s. Bansi
Enterprises (IEC No. BSZPB3689J) had imported amino acid for
agricultural use for which Bill of Entry No. 7428890 was filed
through the appellant misdeclaring description, quantity and
value with the intention to circumvent the applicability of
mandatory registration required for the import of these goods
from the Central Insecticides Board, under Section 9 of the
Insecticides Act, 1968 and to evade customs duty leviable
thereon.
2.3
It was also gathered that the goods have been misdeclared
and the actual goods concealed from prohibited goods under the
Schedule of Insecticides Act.
2.4
After investigations were undertaken, a show cause notice
dated 30.12.2020 was issued to the importer and others
involved. Joint Commissioner in his order dated 24.02.2021
observed as follows:-
“40. Insofar as the 2nd charge against the CB is concerned,
I find that the present case is one where an adjudication
of a Show Cause Notice under the Customs Act, 1962 is
being decided. Therefore, the charge that the Custom
Broker has not followed the obligations stipulated under
C/85930/2022
3
Regulation
10
of
the
Customs
Brokers
Licensing
Regulations, 2018 cannot be dealt by me in these
proceedings. Therefore, this part of the charge levelled
against them in the impugned Show Cause Notice is not
maintainable and has to be dropped in these proceedings
under the Customs Act, 1962 for want of jurisdiction.
However, a copy of this Order in Original is being
endorsed to the Hon'ble Principal Commissioner of
Customs (Gen), 2nd Floor, New Custom House, Ballard
Estate, Mumbai 400 001 for taking appropriate action
under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018.”
He refrained from imposing any penalty under the Customs Act
on the appellant.
2.5
Taking note of the observation made in the order-in-
original, a show cause notice dated 15.07.2021 was issued to
the appellant asking them to show cause as to why the licence
bearing No.11/2391 issued to them should not be revoked and
security deposited should not be forfeited and/or penalty should
not be imposed under Regulation 14 read with 17 & 18 of the
CBLR, 2018 for their failure to comply with the provisions of
Regulation 10(d), (e) & (m) of the CBLR, 2018.
2.6
After conducting enquiry proceedings, the show cause
notice has been adjudicated by the Principal Commissioner as
per the impugned order referred in para 1 above.
2.7
Aggrieved appellant has filed this appeal.
3.1
We have heard Shri N.D. George, Advocate for the
appellant and Shri S.K. Hatangadi, Assistant Commissioner,
Authorised Representative for the Revenue.
3.2
Arguing for the appellant, learned counsel submits that:-
The case against the importer was with regard to the
importation of certain goods which were concealed along
with the declared goods. The case thus was illegal
importation of certain goods which was never in their
knowledge.
C/85930/2022
4
The Joint Commissioner while adjudicating the show cause
notice in which th