IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI Customs Appeal No.42090 of 2018 (Arising out of Order in Original No. 63765/2018 dated 6.6.2018 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai – VIII)

M/s. Raj Brothers Shipping Pvt. Ltd. Appellant

64/23, Jeeva Rathinam Salai Tondiarpet, Chennai – 600 081.

Vs.

Commissioner of Customs (Import) Respondent Custom House No. 60, Rajaji Salai Chennai – 600001. APPEARANCE:

Shri N. Viswanathan, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Anoop Singh, Authorized Representative for the Respondent CORAM Hon’ble Shri P. Dinesha, Member (Judicial)

Hon’ble Shri M. Ajit Kumar, Member (Technical)

FINAL ORDER NO. 40631/2025 Date of Hearing: 08.01.2025 Date of Decision: 20.06.2025 Per M. Ajit Kumar, Appeal No. C/42090/2018 is filed by the appellant, a Customs Broker (CB), against the Order in Original No. 63765/2018 dated 6.6.2018 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai – VIII imposing a penalty of Rs.50,000/- under Regulation 18 of CBLR, 2013. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant Raj Brothers Shipping Pvt. Ltd. were the holders of a Customs Broker License issued by the Chennai Customs. S/Shri T. T. Manohar Boopathy, Hari Prabhu and Thirumalai Thyagarajan (Power of Attorney) were the Directors of the company. Based on the inputs received that the goods imported under two bills of entry were mis-declared in respect of weight, these were detained by SIIB officers for detailed examination. The importer M/s. Global Impex, Mysore had declared the weight of the containers as 7124 kgs and 6448 kgs whereas the on examination it was found that the goods were 13520 kgs and 14718 kgs respectively. Since there were huge variation between the quantities, documents for past imports were sought from the concerned CFS. It was ascertained that the importer had imported 18 such consignments in the past. On scrutiny of the said weighment slips, it was found that the importer had mis-declared the weight in respect of 10 previous consignments. The mis-declared weight worked out to 65529 kg. On perusal of the dockets, it was observed that weighment slips were not available for 6 dockets. It was also observed that out of 10 consignments wherein the importer had mis-declared the weight, 9 consignments were cleared from M/s. Continental Warehousing Corporation and there were mis- match of weight in weighments slips available in the dockets and weight shown in the weighment slips by Continental Warehousing Corporation. After due process of law, the Ld. Adjudicating Authority issued an Order in Original (OIO), imposing a penalty of Rs.50,000/- on the appellant under Regulation 18 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 (CBLR 2013). Hence the present appeal.

3. We have heard Shri N. Viswanathan, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Anoop Singh, Ld. Authorized Representative for the respondent-department.

3.1 The learned counsel for the appellant Shri N. Viswanathan submitted as follows:-

i. The initiation of the present proceedings even after revocation of their license once again with the same proposals is not proper or permissible in law. The proceeding initiated and concluded even after their license was revoked treating them as a CB is not proper or correct.

ii. The order passed having not complied with the mandatory time limit of 180 days to pass the order from the date of issue of the notice render the very proceedings bad and unsustainable.

iii. The suo moto initiation of the proceeding without showing the receipt of any offence report is contrary to the mandate as contained in the CBLR and hence the order needs to be vacated on this ground also.

iv. The respondent also traversed beyond the scope of the notice issued to them which only alleged that they had not brought to the fact of difference in weight to the notice of the AC/DC to invoke regulation 11 [d] of the CBLR the finding recorded as if they connived with the importer and forged the documents which are contrary to the true facts