Customs - Cestat Mumbai: As there is no allegation, let alone evidence, that the appellant did not demonstrate speed and efficiency or had wantonly delayed anything as far as the impugned goods are concerned, there is no reason to accept that regulation 10(n) of Customs Broker Licencing Regulations, 2018 had been contravened – Appeal allowed [Order attached]

Your free trial / membership plan is expired.
Kindly subscribe to get complete access to indirect tax updates and issue wise cases
Why subscribe to us ?
Get complete access to news updates and download copy of case laws/ notification/ circular etc.
Be a part of our WhatsApp group and read real time indirect tax updates
Access to ready case laws of General Issues and Industry Wide Issues under GST
Access to relevant provisions of law / circular in respect to the issues, along with trail of their amendments
Write your GST query to us for evaluation
Subscription Charges:*
Indirect tax updates -
6 months @299 / 1 Year @499 only
Indirect tax updates + Issue wise cases -
6 months @1199 / 1 Year @1999 only
*Plus applicable GST
Admin
13-Nov-2022 12:53:20
Order date: 09 November 2022
Key Pointers:
- The appellant, M/s Shree Simandhar Shipping Service, was handling clearance of goods against bills of entry dated 14.04.2012 and 12.07.2012 filed on behalf of M/s Siddhivinayak Corporation.
- M/s Siddhivinayak Corporation claimed entitlement to avail notification no. 40/2006-Cus dated 1st May 2006 and no. 98/2009-Cus dated 11th September 2009 issued for implementing the 'duty free import authorisation (DFIA)' scheme in the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) notified under Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992.
- The bills of entry had been provisionally assessed under section 18 of Customs Act, 1962 before being finalized subsequently foregoing duty of ₹ 11,39,777 based on an expert opinion as well as finding of Tribunal in a similar dispute pertaining to another importer of Mangalore.
- The issue is whether benefit of notification no. 40/2006-Cus dated 1st May 2006 and no. 98/2009-Cus dated 11th September 2009 is correctly availed?
- The authorities observed that it cannot be approved that the ‘customs broker’ had not been diligent in ascertaining the correctness of information imparted to the client. The finding on breach of regulation 10(e) of Customs Broker Licencing Regulations, 2018 is also not sustainable on the given set of facts.
- Further, the allegation that the appellant had not discharged the duties of customs broker with utmost speed and efficiency and without any delay is based upon the same alleged misconstruing adopted to allege loss of revenue. The only ground for concluding that there has been loss of revenue is the reversal of the dropping of proceedings under Customs Act, 1962 by order of first appellate authority. Such appellate revision does not obfuscate non-leviability of duty opined by the assessing and adjudicating authorities which impedes a final conclusion, as yet, on that score.
- Thus there is no reason to uphold the finding of the respondent-Commissioner that regulation 10(n) of Customs Broker Licencing Regulations, 2018 had been contravened.
- The appeal is allowed.
Related Post
Post Category
Your free trial/ membership plan has expired. Kindly subscribe to get complete access of tax news updates.
Why subscribe to us ?
Get complete access to news updates
Access to the Order Copy of the case law/ Notification/ Circular etc
Be a part of our Whatsapp group and read real time tax updates
Access to ready case laws/ circulars on general and industry-wide issues under GST
Submit your GST issues to us for evaluation