9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (8) TMI 333 - AT - CustomsLevy of penalty under Regulation 18 of CBLR 2018 on the appellant-CHA - revocation of customs broker license - alleged export of glass bangles on highly inflated value by mis-declaring description CTH for claiming ineligible IGST Refund, Drawback MEIS benefit on FOB value - HELD THAT - The ld. Commissioner has recorded the categorical findings exonerating the appellant from all the allegations made in the show cause notice. Further, the ld. Commissioner has also revoked the suspension of the appellant, which had been issued earlier. It is further found that there is no allegation of any mis-chief either by the appellant or by its staff H Card holder. It is further held that simply assisting the customs as a witnesses or otherwise in the examination of the goods does not amount to mis-conduct. Accordingly, the penalty imposed under Regulation 18 of CBLR 2018 is uncalled for. The penalty imposed under Regulation 18 of CBLR, 2018 is set aside - appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Imposition of penalty under Regulation 18 of CBLR 2018 on the appellant-CHA. Analysis: Issue 1: Imposition of Penalty under Regulation 18 of CBLR 2018 The case revolved around the imposition of a penalty of Rs.50,000 under Regulation 18 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 (CBLR, 2018) on the appellant-CHA. The appellant, a Customs Broker, was issued a show cause notice by the Commissioner of Customs, alleging contravention of various provisions of Regulations 10(a), 10(b), 10(d), 10(e), 10(m), and 10(n) of CBLR 2018. The allegations stemmed from the alleged mis-declaration of goods by an exporter, leading to inflated claims for IGST refund, drawback, and MEIS benefits. Despite not being the Customs Broker for the exporter in question, the appellant faced regulatory action due to the involvement of their H-card holder in the examination of the export goods. The Commissioner imposed the penalty based on the lack of proper supervision over the H-card holder's conduct during the examination. The Commissioner, in the Order-in-Original, acknowledged that the appellant did not violate the obligations under Regulations 10(a), 10(b), 10(d), 10(e), 10(m), and 10(n) of CBLR 2018. However, a penalty was imposed due to the H-card holder's participation in the examination of goods and the perceived lack of supervision by the appellant. The appellant contested the penalty, arguing that the mere presence of their employee during the examination did not warrant adverse action. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments, found no misconduct on the part of the appellant or its staff. The Tribunal held that assisting customs during the examination did not constitute misconduct, leading to the conclusion that the penalty imposed under Regulation 18 of CBLR 2018 was unwarranted. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the penalty. In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision focused on the lack of evidence supporting any misconduct by the appellant-CHA or its staff, leading to the overturning of the penalty imposed under Regulation 18 of CBLR 2018. The judgment emphasized the importance of proper supervision but clarified that mere assistance during customs procedures did not amount to misconduct warranting penalties.
|
