9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 855X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g to Rs. 75,000/- was ordered to be forfeited. 2. The appellant is licensed under the Customs Broker Licensing Regulation, 2013 by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Kolkata. They have been permitted to operate under Mumbai Customs by the Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai. The appellant filed certain bills of entry in Navasheva Customs House on behalf of M/s. Uni Colloids Impex Pvt. Ltd. for import of 'Wheat Gluten/Wheat Gluten Amugluten 160'. The DFIA License was also attached for duty free items. The Customs Authority noticed that the licenses attached did not cover the goods under import. Consequently the goods were ordered for confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962. The show cause notice dated 11.11.2016 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also he submitted that the impugned order is not justified. He brought to our notice that the show cause notice for the alleged customs offence dated 11.11.2016 issued by the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai was adjudicated by issue of the Order dated 14.09.2018. In the said order, while upholding the confiscation under Section III of the Customs Act, the ld. Commissioner has observed that there is no jusitification to hold that the appellant (who was one of the noticees) has failed to sensitise his client i.e. the importer. Accordingly, no penalty has been imposed on the appellant by the ld. Commissioner. iii) Finally he submitted that the impugned order may be set aside. 5. Ld. DR justified the impugned order. 6. Heard both sides and pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . After perusal of the record of this case we find that there is no specific evidence produced by the Revenue to the effect that appellant have failed to comply with the Regulation 11 (d). The Jurisdictional Commissioner, while adjudicating the customs offence has also absolved the appellant from imposition of any penalty under the Customs Act. He has further observed in passing in the Order that the appellant cannot be held under Regulation 11(d). 9. In view of the above discussions, we find no justification for the extreme steps taken by the lower authority in ordering for forfeiture of the security deposit and revoking the customs broker license. 10. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed. (Dictated a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
