Premier Clearing Agency Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs (General), ...

(Arising out of Order-in-Original CAO No. 47/2014/CAC/CC(G)/PKA-CBS dated 21.4.2014 passed by Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai)

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr. P.K. Jain, Member (Technical)

======================================================

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the :

CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen of the Order?

4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities?

======================================================

Premier Clearing Agency Pvt. Ltd. Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai Respondent

Appearance: Shri Prashant Mishra, Advocate, for appellant Shri S.J. Shah, Assistant Commissioner (AR), for respondent

CORAM: Honble Mr. P.K. Jain, Member (Technical)

Date of Hearing: 11.9.2015 Date of Decision: 11.9.2015

ORDER NO

Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a Customs Broker Licence No. 11/665 and has been granted a regular CHA licence under Regulation 10(1) of the CHA Licensing Regulations, 1984. The said CHA is a private limited company with two directors. On 17.5.2011, a new director, Shri Neel Manoj Doshi, was appointed. As per Regulation 14 of the CHA Licensing Regulations, 2004, they were required to intimate the said change within a period of 60 days to the Commissioner of Customs. However, this was not done but was done on 4.6.2013 i.e. after a delay of almost two years. A show cause notice was issued to the appellant on 28.2.2014 asking as to why:-

(i) the request for changes in constitution of the Customs Broker Licence should not be rejected for not complying with the provisions of CBLR 2013 (erstwhile CHALR 2004)

(ii) action under Regulation 18 of CBLR 2013 [erstwhile Regulation 20(1) of the CHALR, 2004] should not be initiated for violating the Regulation 12 & 13(1) of CBLR, 2013 [erstwhile Regulation 14 and 15(1) of the CHALR, 2004 ]

(iii) penalty under Regulation 22 of CBLR, 2013 should not be imposed for contravention of provisions under Regulation 12 and 13(1) of CBLR, 2013 [erstwhile Regulation 14 and 15(1) of CHALR. 2004].

After receiving the reply and hearing the party, the Commissioner vide the impugned order imposed a penalty of Rs.25,000/- for violating Regulation 12 of Customs Broker Licence Regulations, 2013.

2. Learned counsels main argument is that the above delay is a bona fide delay inasmuch as they were not aware that they are required to intimate the same and it would be seen that in past 20 years, there is no case of penalty against the CHA and in view of the past conduct, the penalty should be set aside.

3. The learned AR reiterated the findings of the original authority.

4. I have considered the submissions made by both the sides. It is not disputed that under the Regulations, the appellant was required to intimate to the Custom House the amendment in the directorship within 60 days. I find in this case the said intimation was done almost after two years.

5. Keeping in view the fact that there has been unreasonable long delay in informing the Custom House, the penalty imposed is in order. The penalty imposed is not on the higher side. Accordingly the appeal filed is dismissed.

(Pronounced in Court)

(P.K. Jain) Member (Technical)

tvu 1 3