Custom
TRT-2025-
Cestat Kolkata
Date:-26-07-22
In:-
Issue Favourable to Tax Payer ?:-
Order Date: 26 July 2022
Key Pointers-
- The Appellant, S.K Kanjilal by this appeal has challenged the revocation of Customs Broker Licence by the Principal Commissioner of Custom.
- In the impugned order the Principal Commissioner of Customs has referred to an Inquiry Report and the Appellant’s submission and concluded that the Appellant had violated the Regulation 10(d) and 10(e) of CBLR, 2018.
- It was alleged that some of the exporters had reported to have made fake exports of various consignments to Bangladesh through Petrapol Land Customs Station and thereby availed drawback; that the said exporters had not furnished Bank Realization Certificates confirming realization of export proceeds; that it was the Appellant who was appointed as Customs Broker in all the above exports; that such fraudulent activity of the scale involved could not be possible without the abetment and willful participation of the Appellant.
- Accordingly, Order was passed for revocation of Customs Broker Licence along with forfeiture of full amount of the Security Deposit furnished by the Customs Broker as per Regulation 18 of CBLR, 2013.
- The Tribunal observed that there were no answers to the appellant’s contention that “Let Export '' orders were issued after due verification by the concerned officials and that export manifest was also generated, implying thereby that the goods in question had crossed the border. But, in any case, other than mere allegations of no advice and no due diligence, as Revenue has not brought on record the role/roles played by the Appellant and that which amounted to connivance etc., since it is the settled position of law that allegations howsoever strong, cannot take the place of proof.
- The revocation of licence was definitely not called for and hence the impugned order is set aside insofar as it relates to the revocation of Customs Broker Licence. But, however, since the Appellant was also unable to satisfy us on the aspect of advising its client and exercising due diligence, the Tribunal was of the opinion that it would meet the ends of justice if a penalty by way of deterrent is imposed, inasmuch as, instead of forfeiture of the full Security Deposit, Rs.25,000/-.
- The impugned order to the extent of revocation of Appellant’s licence is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
Download Case Law
