AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Regulation
invoked",Ingredient of the Regulation,Finding of Commissioner,Submissions of the Appellant
10(a),"Obtain authorization from the
company which has employed
the Customs Broker","Find it unconceivable that
there can be a true
authorisation from a firm
which does not physically
exist.","Copies of the authorisation
letters dated January 04, 2017
and January 07, 2017 of the
two firms were submitted, as is
clear from page 56 of the
order.
10(d)
and
10(e)","Advice the client to comply
with the provisions of the Act
and the Regulations.
Exercise due diligence to
ascertain the correctness of
any information which he
imparts to a client.","The firm in question was
proved to be non-existing and,
therefore, there is no question
of advising his client to comply
with provisions of the Act.
Customs Broker has failed to
exercise due diligence to
ascertain the correctness of
t he information which he
furnished for the said firm
since he never visited the two
firms nor met any of the
partners.","Due diligence does not include
physical verification. As per
practice IEC number, GST
number and identity of clients
has been done by taking all
KYC norm documents
prescribed in Circular 09/2010.
10(n),"Verify correctness of IEC,
GSTIN, identity of his client
and functioning of his client at
the declared address by using
reliable independent authentic
documents data or information","The Customs Broker provided
partnership deed but failed to
produce any of the documents
listed in the Annexure to the
Circular. Customs Broker was
bound to verify the existence
of the importer/exporter at the
declared address.","Partnership deed, ST
registration, PAN card, IEC
code, Voter Card, Electricity
Bill, Rent Agreement, Banks
Details & Mobile Number of
the partner and e-mail ID were
submitted.
At page 59 of the order it is
mentioned that in reply to show
cause notice, the Customs
Broker submitted Partnership
deed, ST registration, Voter ID,
PAN, IEC and during
proceedings submitted self
attested copy of same, but in
the very next paragraph it is
stated that Customs Broker had
not provided any document
except Partnership deed. Thus,
the allegation is self-
contradictory and
unsustainable.
13(12),"Customs Broker shall exercise
such supervision as may be
necessary to ensure proper
conduct of his employee in the
transaction of business and he
shall be held responsible for all
acts or omissions of his
employees during employment.","Had the Customs Broker
exercised proper supervision
on the functioning of his G-
Card employee, the fictitious
exporting firms would have
not succeeded in exporting
overvalued goods.","There has been no act or
omission by employee since he
acted in accordance with
Board Circular 09/2010 and
exercised due diligence by
procuring all independent
authentic documents in
accordance with the Licensing
Regulations.
Department;,,,
(iii) The exporters never responded to the summons and the letters addressed to them returned with a note that the exporters or the firm have not,,,
been found at the address;,,,
(iv) Proper authorisation was not obtained as per Regulation 10(a) and so the question of exercising due diligence under Regulation 10(e) and advising,,,
the client to adhere to the provisions of the Act and the Regulations, as contemplated under Regulation 10(d), does not arise;",,,
(v) Regulation 10(n), which requires the Customs Broker to verify the genuineness of documents, has also not been followed;",,,
(vi) Regulation 13(12), which requires the Customs Broker to exercise such supervision as may be necessary to ensure proper conduct of his",,,
employees in the transaction of business, has also not been followed; and",,,
(vii) In support of the submissions, reliance has been placed on the following decisions:",,,
(a) Millenium Express Cargo Pvt Ltd. vs. Commr. of Cus., New Delhi 2017 (346) ELT 471 (Tri.-Del.).",,,
(b) HLPL Global Logistics Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commr. of Cus. (Airport & Admn.), Kolkata 2019 (370) ELT 501 (Tri.-Del.).",,,
(c) Bhaskar Logistic Services Pvt Ltd. vs. Union of India 2016 (340) ELT 17 (Pat.).,,,
(d) Multi Wings Clearing & Forwaring P. Ltd. vs. C.C. (General), New Delhi 2019 (369) ELT 820 (Tri.-Del.).",,,
The submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the Appellant and the learned Authorised Representative of the Department have been,,,
considered.,,,
The License was issued to the Appellant about 20 years back. The Appellant, as a holder of the License, had done customs clearance for firms.",,,
The Department had started investigation in 2017 in respect of various exports of readymade garments and during this investigation it was found that,,,
five of such exports pertained to the Appellant. According to the show cause notice dated December 03, 2019 that was issued to the Appellant, of the",,,
five exporters, two exporters, namely, M/s Impex Trading and Global Trading were not available at the address mentioned in the KYC documents.",,,
The Appellant claims that the officers of the Department visited the address provided by these two firms after a long period of about 18 months.,,,
The show cause notice alleges violation of Regulations 10(a), (d), (e), (n) and 13(12) of the Licensing Regulations. They are reproduced:",,,
“10. Obligations of Customs Broker.-A Customs Broker shall-,,,
(a) obtain an authorisation from each of the companies, firms or individuals by whom he is for the time being employed as a Customs Broker",,,
and produce such authorisation whenever required by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commission of Customs, as the",,,
case may be;,,,
(d) advise his client to comply with the provisions of the Act, other allied Acts and the rules and regulations thereof, and in case of non-",,,
compliance, shall being the matter to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, as the case",,,
may be;,,,
(e) exercise due diligence to ascertain the correctness of any information which he imparts to a client with reference to any work related to,,,
clearance of cargo or baggage;,,,
(n) verify correctness of Importer Exporter Code (IEC) number, Goods and Service Tax Identification Number (GSTIN), identity of his client",,,
and functioning of his client at the declared address by using reliable, independent, authentic documents, data or information;",,,
Engagement or employment of persons-,,,
(12) The Customs Broker shall exercise such supervision as may be necessary to ensure proper conduct of his employees in the transaction,,,
of business and he shall be held responsible for all acts or omissions of his employees during their employment.â€,,,
The Appellant, in his defence referred to a Circular dated April 08, 2010 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi. The",,,
relevant clarification relating to Know Your Customer (KYC) norms for identification of clients by Customs House Agents in the said Circular is,,,
reproduced below:,,,
CIRCULAR DATED 08-04-2010,,,
“(iv) Know Your Customer (KYC) norms for identification of clients by CHA’s:,,,
In the context of increasing number of offences involving various modus-operandi such as misuse of export promotion schemes,",,,
fraudulent availment of export incentives and duty evasion by bogus IEC holders etc., it has been decided by the Board to put in place the",,,
“Know Your Customer (KYC)†guidelines for CHA’s so that they are not used intentionally or unintentionally by importers/exporters,,,
who indulge in fraudulent activities. Accordingly, Regulation 13 of CHALR, 2004, has been suitably amended to provide that certain",,,
obligations on the CHAs to verify the antecedent, correctness of import export code Number, identity of his client and the functioning of his",,,
client in the declared address by using reliable, independent, authentic documents, data or information. In this regard, a detailed guideline",,,
on the list of documents to be verified and obtained from the client/ customer is enclosed in the Annexure. It would also be obligatory for the,,,
client/ customer to furnish to the CHA, a photograph of himself/herself in the case of an individual and those of the authorised signatory in",,,
respect of other forms of organisation such as company/trust etc., and any two of the listed documents in the annexure.â€",,,
(emphasis supplied),,,
The relevant portion of the Annexure of the said Circular containing the features to be verified and the documents to be obtained from the client/,,,
customers in relation to Partnership Firms is reproduced below:,,,
S No.,Form of organization,Features to be verified,Documents to be obtained
1.,Partnership firm,"(i) legal name
(ii) Permanent address, in full,
complete and correct.
(iii) Name of all partners and
their addresses, in full
complete and correct.
(iv) Telephone, fax number, e-
mail address of the firm and
partners","(i) Registration certificate, if
registered
(ii) Partnership deed
(iii) Power of Attorney granted
to a partner or an employee of
the firm to transact business on
its behalf.
(iv) Any officially valid
document identifying the
partners and the person holding
the Power of Attorney and their
addresses
(v) Telephone bill in the name of
firm/partners
The Commissioner has placed much emphasis on the statements made by Virender Kumar Saraswat, who is a G-Card holder. The Commissioner",,,
noted that he had made a statement that he had never visited the firms nor he had met any of the partners of the said firms and that it was Shashank,,,
Sharma who used to meet the G-Card holder on behalf of the two firms to hand over the papers. Emphasis has been also placed on his statement that,,,
he had asked Shashank Sharma for verification of the two firms. The Commissioner, therefore, concluded that the Customs Broker and his G-Card",,,
holder were conscious of the fact that the two firms, for whom they were making customs clearance, were fictitious or non-existing. After having so",,,
noted, the Commissioner made the following observations:",,,
“I, therefore, hold that the CB has failed to exercise due diligence to ascertain the correctness of any information which he",,,
furnished for the said firms. Further, as the firms in question were proved to be non-existing there is no question of advising his client",,,
to comply with the provisions of the Act, other allied Acts and the rules and regulations thereof and the CB has definitely failed to do",,,
so. I have gone through the submissions of the CB in this regard and find no force in his submissions in view of the above. I observed that the inquiry,,,
officer too in his report has observed that the case has to be analysed in the totality of circumstances and he ultimately concluded that CB has,,,
contravened the provisions of 10(d) & 10(e) of the CBLR, 2018.",,,
Thus, I concur with the finding of the IO that the CB has violated the provisions of 10(d) and 10(e) of the CBLR, 2018 (erstwhile",,,
Regulation 11(d) and 11(e) of the CBLR, 2013).â€",,,
(emphasis supplied),,,
Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that due diligence does not mean actual physical verification. In fact, the practice always has been to",,,
verify the correctness of the information provided by examining the KYC documents prescribed in the Circular dated April 08, 2010.",,,
Paragraph 6 of the Circular provides for certain obligations on the Customs Broker to verify the correctness of Import/Export Code Number,",,,
identity and functioning of the client at the declared address by using reliable, independent, authentic documents, data or information. For this purpose,",,,
detailed guidelines on the features to be verified and obtained from the clients have been provided in the Annexure to the Circular. It has also been,,,
mentioned in the Circular that it would be obligatory for the client/customer to furnish a photograph in the case of an individual and those of the,,,
authorised signatory in respect of other forms of organisations, such as company/trusts and any two of the listed documents mentioned in the",,,
Annexure.,,,
The Annexure to the Circular, in the case of a partnership firm, requires certain features to be verified and documents to be obtained. The",,,
features to be verified are as follows:,,,
(i) legal name,,,
(ii) Permanent address, in full, complete and correct.",,,
(iii) Name of all partners and their addresses in full and correct.,,,
(iv) Telephone, fax number, e-mail address of the firm and partners.",,,
The documents to be obtained are as follow:,,,
(i) Registration certificate, if registered",,,
(ii) Partnership deed,,,
(iii) Power of Attorney granted to a partner or an employee of the firm to transact business on its behalf.,,,
(iv) Any officially valid document identifying the partners and the person holding the Power of Attorney and their addresses,,,
(v) Telephone bill in the name of firm/partners.,,,
Out of the documents listed in the Annexure to the Circular, only two documents have to be obtained. The Appellant did obtain two documents.",,,
Neither the Circular nor the Annexure requires any physical verification of the premises. It is not the case of the Department that the documents that,,,
had been obtained were forged documents. The reply submitted by the Appellant has not been discussed at all nor any reason has been assigned as to,,,
why these documents could not be considered. The Commissioner appeared to have been swayed by the fact that the two firms did not exist at the,,,
addresses provided and so the documents cannot be relied upon. It needs to be noted that this verification of the address was undertaken by the,,,
Department after 18 months.,,,
The provisions of Regulation 10(e) of the Licensing Regulations were examined at length by the Delhi High Court in Kunal Travels and the,,,
relevant observation are as follows:,,,
“12. Clause (e) of the aforesaid Regulation requires exercise of due diligence by the CHA regarding such information which he may give,,,
to his client with reference to any work related to clearance of cargo. Clause (l) requires that all documents submitted, such as bills of entry",,,
and shipping bills delivered etc. reflect the name of the importer/exporter and the name of the CHA prominently at the top of such,,,
documents. The aforesaid clauses do not obligate the CHA to look into such information which may be made available to it from the,,,
exporter/importer. The CHA is not an inspector to weigh the genuineness of the transaction. It is a processing agent of documents with,,,
respect to clearance of goods through customs house and in that process only such authorized personnel of the CHA can enter the customs,,,
house area. What is noteworthy is that the IE Code of the exporter M/s. H.M. Impex was mentioned in the shipping bills, this itself reflects",,,
that before the grant of said IE Code, the background check of the said importer/exporter had been undertaken by the customs authorities,",,,
therefore, there was no doubt about the identity of the said exporter. It would be far too onerous to expect the CHA to inquire into and verify",,,
the genuineness of the IE Code given to it by a client for each import/export transaction. When such code is mentioned, there is a",,,
presumption that an appropriate background check in this regard i.e. KYC etc. would have been done by the customs authorities. There is,,,
nothing on record to show that the appellant had knowledge that the goods mentioned in the shipping bills did not reflect the truth of the,,,
consignment sought to be exported. In the absence of such knowledge, there cannot be any mens rea attributed to the appellant or its",,,
proprietor. Whatever may be the value of the goods, in the present case, simply because upon inspection of the goods they did not",,,
corroborate with what was declared in the shipping bills, cannot be deemed as misdeclaration by the CHA because the said document was",,,
S. No.,Document Submitted,Document required for issuance,
1.,Service Tax Registration Certificate,"Self-attested copy of the following documents:
1 Copy of the PAN Card of the proprietor/partners.
Photograph and proof of identity (any one out of below list)
of the person filling the application:
- PAN Card
- Passport
- Voter Identity Card
- Aadhar Card - Driving license
- Any other Photo-identity card issued by the Central
Government, State Government.
Document to establish possession of the premises to be
registered such as proof of ownership, lease or rent
agreement, allotment letter from Government, or No Objection
Certificate from the legal owner.
Details of the main Bank Account
Memorandum/Articles of Association/List of Directors
Authorisation by the Board of Directors/Partners/Proprietor
for the person filing the application.
Business transaction numbers obtained from other
Government departments or agencies such as Customs
Registration No. (BIN No.), Import Export Code (IEC
number, State Sales Tax Number (VAT), Central Sales Tax
Number, Company Index Number (CIN)w hich have been
issued prior to the filing of the service tax registration
application.",
2.,"PAN Card of Partners/Partnership
Firm","1 Copy of certificate of registration issued by Registrar of
firms of Copy of Partnership Deed duly notarized by Notary in
India which works as proof of the firm’s existence along
with PAN Card from 49A.
2 Address Proof of firm â€" If the registered office place is
rented, rent agreement andone utility bill (electricity bill, water
bill, property tax bill, gas receipt etc.) have to be submitted.
Also, NOC from landlord is also submitted.
3 PAN card of partners â€" All partners are required to submit
their PAN number as identity proof.
4 Address proof of partners â€" Partners can submit any one
of the documents â€" Aadhar Card, Driving License, passport
or Voter ID card as address proof. Name and other details on
address proof should match PAN card details.",
3.,IEC Code,"1.Firm’s copy of PAN Card
2.Firm’s cancel cheque copy of current bank account
Copy of Rent Agreement or Electricity Bill of the premise.",
4.,Voter Card,"Following documents are needed while applying for an election
or voter ID card â€
3 Address proof
2 Age proof
3 Passport size photographs For Address proof one may
provide any of the following documents :
-Mobile telephone bill
-Land phone bill -Water bill
-Electricity bill
-Property tax receipt
-Bank statement -Passport
-Ration card
-House Lease/Rental agreement
-LPG receipt -Driving license",
5.,Rent Agreement,"-Identity cards given by the employer.
1 Two passport size photos
2 Aadhar card
3 If the tenant is a company, then the person coming for the
registration should bring a board resolution/authorization letter
from the company mentioning the person’s right to register
the lease, along with the company seal.
Note: Rent Agreements are made on stamp papers and
is signed in the presence of two witnesses who also sign
the rent agreement.",
The Commissioner, after referring to the Board Circular dated April 08, 2010 and its Annexure, observed as follows:",,,
“In this regard, the Inquiry Officer observed that to verify above said feature of partnership firm any two of the above said documents",,,
had to be obtained. In the instant case, CB has provided partnership deed. But CB has failed to provide any other document i.e. either",,,
registration certificate of partnership firm or Power of Attorney granted to a partner or an employee of the firm to transact business on its,,,
behalf or any officially valid document identifying the partners and the person holding the Power of Attorney and their addresses or,,,
Telephone bill in the name of firm/ Partners. Further, the Inquiry Officer found from the statement recorded on two occasions of Shri",,,
Virender Kumar Saraswat that he did not specifically mentioned that he obtained partnership deed from the exporting firms neither he,,,
forwarded any such deed to DRI through his mail whereas he forwarded other documents to the DRI on their mail. Therefore, the inquiry",,,
officer rightly held that the partnership deed produced during subject proceedings cannot be attributed as an authentic document as at this,,,
stage it cannot be verified simply because neither partner of the firm nor the firms are existent and traceable and concluded that CB that,,,
failed to produce any of the documents as listed in the above table and hence the contravened the provisions of Regulation 10(n) of CBLR,",,,
2018 (read with erstwhile regulation 11(n) of CBLR, 2013). Further, regarding the contention of the CB that it is not compulsory for CB to",,,
physically verify the existence of importer/ exporter, the inquiry officer found that CB is not required to physically verify the existence of the",,,
importer/ exporter at the declared address but CB is bound to verify the existence of importer/ exporter at the declared address as per the,,,
Regulation 10(n) of CBLR, 2018 as well as CBIC Circular No. 09/2010 by obtaining prescribed documents from their clien.t sFurther, the",,,
inquiry officer observed that CB has not checked the authenticity of the representative/ manager of export firm i.e. Shri Shashank Sharma,,,
and even CB has failed to obtained any authorisation in favour of Shri Shashank Sharma.T he inquiry officer found no merit in the,,,
submissions of the CB and concluded that the CB has violated provisions of the said Regulation 10(n). I have also gone through the,,,
submissions of the CB in this regard and find no force in his submissions in view of the above.,,,
In view of above, I concur with the observations of the IO and hold that the CB has violated provisions of the said Regulation 10(n) of CBLR,",,,
2018.â€,,,
(emphasis supplied),,,
The Delhi High Court in Shiva Khurana had an occasion to examine the provisions of Regulation 13(o) of the 2004 Regulations, which Regulation",,,
is similar to Regulation 10(n) of the Licensing Regulations, and the relevant observations are as follows:",,,
“7. This court is of the opinion that the impugned order is justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. The reference to the,,,
verification of ""antecedents and correctness of Importer Exporter Code (IEC) Number"" and the identity of the concerned exporter/importer,",,,
in the opinion of this Court is to be read in the context of the CHA's duty as a mere agent rather than as a Revenue official who is,,,
empowered to investigate and enquire into the veracity of the statement made orally or in a document. If one interprets Regulation 13(o),,,
reasonably in the light of what the CHA is expected to do, in the normal course, the duty cast is merely to satisfy itself as to whether the",,,
importer or exporter in fact is reflected in the list of the authorized exporters or importers and possesses the Importer Exporter Code (IEC),,,
Number. As to whether in reality, such exporters in the given case exist or have shifted or are irregular in their dealings in any manner (in",,,
relation to the particular transaction of export), can hardly be the subject matter of ""due diligence"" expected of such agent unless there are",,,
any factors which ought to have alerted it to make further inquiry. There is nothing in the Regulations nor in the Customs Act which can,,,
cast such a higher responsibility as are sought to be urged by the Revenue. In other words, in the absence of any indication that the CHA",,,
concerned was complicit in the facts of a particular case, it cannot ordinarily be held liable.â€",,,
The basic requirement of Regulation 10(n) is that the Customs Broker should verify the identity of the client and functioning of the client at the,,,
declared address by using, reliable, independent, authentic documents, data or information. For this purpose, a detailed guideline on the list of",,,
documents to be verified and obtained from the client is contained in the Annexure to the Circular dated April 8, 2010. It has also been mentioned in",,,
the aforesaid Circular that any of the two listed documents in the Annexure would suffice. The Commissioner noticed in the impugned order that any,,,
two documents could be obtained. The appellant had submitted two documents and this fact has also been stated in paragraph 27(a) of the order. It,,,
was obligatory on the part of the Commissioner to have mentioned the documents and discussed the same but all that has been stated in the impugned,,,
order is that having gone through the submissions of the Customs Broker, it is found that there is no force in the submissions.",,,
The finding recorded by the Commissioner that the required documents were not submitted is, therefore, factually incorrect.",,,
The Commissioner, therefore, committed an error in holding that the appellant failed to ensure due compliance of the provisions of Regulations",,,
10(n) of the Licensing Regulations.,,,
13 (12) of the Licensing Regulations,,,
This Regulation provides that the Customs Broker shall exercise such supervision as may be necessary to ensure proper conduct of his employees,,,
in the transaction of business and he will be held responsible for all acts and omissions of his employees during their employment.,,,
The Commissioner has made the following observations to conclude that the provisions of Regulations 13(12) of the Licensing Regulations have,,,
not been complied with:,,,
“I find that the Inquiry Officer in his report after considering the submissions of the CB observed that the CB has failed to explain in,,,
what manner he used to supervise the functioning of this employee. The Inquiry Officer also found from the statement dated 28.01.2017 of,,,
Sh. Virender Kumar Saraswat that he had oral understanding with CB firm and all the export papers/shipping bills of CB at Delhi Air Cargo,,,
filed by him. He also stated that he was in charate of overall supervision of all the exports made through the firm M/s Perfect Logicare,,,
Private Limited. Further, the Inquiry Officer found that he stated that he joined CB firm in 2008 and till now he had been working with the",,,
CB firm. The Inquiry Officer rightly observed from the statement of Sh. Virender Kumar Saraswar that he is overall in charge of the CB firm,,,
at Delhi. CB has failed to explain in what manner he used to supervise the functioning of his G-Card employee. It was the responsibility of,,,
CB to ascertain from his G-Card holder that nature of documents that he obtained from his clients for KYC purpose are legally valid. But,,,
the CB has failed to do the same. Had the CB exercised his proper supervision on the functioning of his G-Card employee, the fictitious",,,
exporting firms would have not succeeded in exporting the overvalued goods with intention to avail ineligible drawback. The Inquiry,,,
Officer found no merit in the contentions of CB and concluded that CB has contravened the provisions of Regulation 13(12) of CBLR, 2018",,,
{read with erstwhile regulation 17(9) of CBLR, 2013}",,,
In view of the above, I concur with the observations of the IO and hold that the CB has violated provisions of the said Regulation",,,
13(12) of CBLR, 2018 {read with erstwhile regulation 17(9) of CBLR, 2013}.â€",,,
(emphasis supplied),,,
The contention of the appellant is that the G-Card holder acted strictly in accordance with the guidelines issued in the Circular dated April 8, 2010.",,,
According to the appellant, the G-Card holder exercised due diligence by procuring all independent and authentic documents.",,,
As noticed above, if the documents that were submitted to the G-Card holder, prima-facie appeared to be authentic, there was no reason for the",,,
G-Card holder to verify the contents of the documents. The grant of an Importer Exporter Code number was held by the Delhi High Court inK unal,,,
Travels to pre-suppose verification of facts. The decision rendered by the Tribunal in Millenium Express does not help the Department in view of,,,
the judgments of the Delhi High Court in Kunal Travels and Shiva Khurana. The decision of the Tribunal in HLPL Global Logistics would not be,,,
applicable in the present case since this decision relates to violation of the provisions section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 and not the Licensing",,,
Regulations. The decision of the Patna High Court inB haskar Logistic also does not help the Department. The misuse of Importer and Exporter,,,
Code had been detected in the case. The decision of the Tribunal in Multi Wings does not also help the Department as it was found as a fact that the,,,
KYC documents were not available with the assessee at the time of visit of the Investigating Agency.,,,
It also needs to be noted that the statement of the Customs Broker in the present case was not recorded and only the statement of his G-Card,,,
holder was recorded by the Investigating Agency. It was necessary to record the statement of the Customs Broker as allegations have been made,,,
against the Customs Broker. This fact has also been noticed by the Tribunal in G.M. Enterprises vs. Commissioner of Cus. (Export), Nhava Sheva",,,
2010 (262) ELT 796 (Tri. Mumbai).,,,
The inevitable conclusion, therefore, that follows is that the Commissioner was not justified in revoking the License of the appellant or forfeiting",,,
the security deposit or imposing penalty.,,,
Thus, for all the reasons stated above, it is not possible to sustain the impugned order dated June 26, 2020 passed by the Commissioner. It is,",,,
accordingly, set aside and the appeal is allowed.",,,
(Pronounced on December 17, 2020)",,,