CAO

No.

77/CAC/PCC (G)/CBS (Adj.) dated 09.01.2020 passed by the

Principal Commissioner of Customs (General), New Custom House,

Mumbai.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are holders of

Customs Broker License Number 11/303 issued under regulation

9(1) of Custom House Agents Regulations, 2004. The Customs

C/85415/2020

2

Broker License was issued to the appellant by Mumbai Customs

and was valid up to 31.12.2017. At Unaccompanied Baggage

Centre, Air Cargo Complex, Sahar, Mumbai, one unaccompanied

baggage was received from Sharja. The baggage was booked in

the name of Ms. Usha Mudaliar. For clearance of the said baggage,

a Baggage Declaration Form (BDF) bearing number 200892 was

filed on 17.02.2017. The said baggage declaration form was signed

by Shri Pinakin A. Sodha. Shri Pinakin A. Sodha was holder of

CARDEX No. S-621 and he was working for the appellant i.e. M/s N

D Masrani. Along with the baggage declaration form, list of items

declared for Customs clearance was also filed and the said list was

in the form of printed proforma having the name and logo of the

appellant. The baggage declaration form, the printed proforma and

an application addressed to Assistant Commissioner of Customs

were signed by Ms. Usha Mudaliar and Shri Pinakin A. Sodha.

When the above stated baggage was opened, 4.202 Kg of gold was

found in the said baggage. Therefore, the statement of Shri Pinakin

A. Sodha was recorded on 18.02.2017 and again on 11.05.2017

who stated inter alia that his job profile was related to complete

the Customs formalities and documentations for clearance of

unaccompanied baggage and that he reported to the appellant CHA

firm. Investigations were further carried out and an inquiry was

ordered against the appellant. It appeared to Revenue that the

appellant had violated regulations 11(a), 11(b), 11(d), 11(e),

11(f), 11(m) and 11(o) of Custom Broker License Regulations,

2013. The inquiry officer conducted the inquiry and submitted

inquiry report dated 08.07.2019. Subsequent to the same, by

accepting the inquiry report, the impugned order was passed. The

learned Commissioner through impugned order has found that the

C/85415/2020

3

appellant had violated all the regulations which were stated earlier

and imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on the appellant under

regulation 18 of Custom Broker License Regulations, 2013,

forfeited the entire amount of security deposit deposited by the

appellant with Customs authorities and revoked Customs Broker

License bearing No. 11/303 under regulation 18 of Custom Broker

Licensing Regulations, 2013 (now regulations 14 of CBLR, 2018).

Aggrieved by the said order the appellant is before this Tribunal.

3.

Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant. The learned

Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the inquiry officer has

based his conclusions solely on the statements recorded by the

investigation agency. He further submitted that the adjudicating

authority without considering the defence has simply accepted the

inquiry report and passed the order and the same therefore, is not

sustainable in law. In respect the charge that the appellant has

failed to advice his client to comply the provisions of Customs Act,

he has submitted that the passenger herself has signed the

declaration stating that she is not carrying any contraband goods

in the baggage. He has further submitted that the original

authority has passed the order without application of mind.

4.

Heard the learned AR. Learned AR has submitted that Ms.

Usha Mudaliar stated in her statement that she had handed over

her passport to Ms. Durriya Soni as she has promised a job in

Dubai and some money and that she also had stated that she had

signed some documents given to her by Ms. Durriya Soni on

15.02.2017. He further submitted that Shri Pinakin A. Sodha has

cleared 43 consignments through unaccompanied baggage centre

C/85415/2020

4

mainly for Shri Yusuf Lokhandwala and Ms. Durriya Soni in similar

fashion. He further submitted that