By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, MAY 13, 2015: THE appellant, a Customs Broker/CHA, filed a Bill of Entry on behalf of the importer for clearance of assorted soft drinks, chocolates, baked beans, vinegar, etc. The Bill of Entry was registered and presented for examination by the employee of the appellant along with No Objection Certificate (NOC) from 'Food Safety & Standard Authority of India' (FSSAI in short).

The Customs authorities found that the NOCs produced were forged or bogus, which was confirmed by the authorities of FSSAI by their letter dated 4.12.2013.

On examination by the Customs Intelligence Unit (CIU), the goods were found to be as per declaration i.e. packing list and invoices. The goods valued at Rs.8,10,431/- were seized. Thereafter the importer made a request for provisional release, the same were allowed to be cleared on payment of duty, Bank Guarantee and Bond as well as production of fresh NOC issued by the FSSAI dated 03.02.2014.

In the course of investigation, an employee of the appellant firm in his statement submitted that he had handed over all the relevant documents to one Prakash Phapale on 6.11.2013 to take an appointment with FSSAI;that at the office of FSSAI, he met one Sachin, who undertakes to do the job (getting certification) on commission, being gross charges of Rs.5000/- per certificate including the FSSAI fees, which was agreed upon;that the certificates were collected by Prakash Phapale from the said Sachin, who had assured that he will give the receipt issued by FSSAI later on and the said NOCs were found to be forged by the Customs authorities; that since he was clearing food items for the first time, he did not know the formalities and relied upon the agent Sachin.

In his statement, Prakash Phapale also submitted that he was a transport agent and was not aware with the FSSAI formalities and/or procedure and accordingly was dependent on the said Sachin and that the importer was not aware of the dealing with Sachin.

Subsequently, after about one year, the appellant CHA has been prohibited for the alleged occurrence under the provisions of Regulation 23 of CBLR, 2013.

Before the CESTAT, the appellant vehemently urged that there is no finding as to the complicity of either staff or the management of the CHA firm in the whole episode of submission of improper NOC; that the only finding is that the staff of the appellant, due to lack of knowledge of FSSAI procedure, has been taken for a ride by the said Sachin. It is further urged that the said event is not of such a magnitude and or leading to loss of revenue and/or customs duty and as such, the impugned order is bad and fit to be set aside. The appellant also relies on the decision in Babaji Shivram Clearing & Carriers Pvt. Ltd. 2011-TIOL-326-HC-MUM-CUS for seeking a ruling in their favour.

The AR submitted that the appellant has been rightly penalized for the act of omission on part of its authorized employee.

The Bench observed -

"5. Having considered the rival contentions, we hold that there is no serious charges against the appellant, nor there is any alleged loss of the revenue and nor any reasons have been stated in the impugned order requiring prohibition of the appellant-Customs Broker for carrying on his business in the Mumbai Customs Commissionerate and accordingly, we set aside the impugned order. The appellant-Customs Broker shall be entitled to carry on their work as Customs Broker with immediate effect."

The order was directed to be given by Dasti.

(See 2015-TIOL-848-CESTAT-MUM )