9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 1263X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oker alleging violation of Regulation 11(a) and (n) of CBLR, 2013. The proceedings culminated in passing Order-in-Original dated 12.10.2017, whereby penalty of Rs. 50,000/- was imposed. The appellant then opted to pay the penalty and not to take up the matter in appeal. However, later the appellant wanted to extend his business to other ports. He apprehended that he would not receive a no objection certificate due to the penalty imposed. On obtaining legal advice, the appellant has thereafter preferred the present appeal. It is argued by the learned counsel that no penalty can be imposed when the inquiry report is in favour of the Customs Broker. That the issue as to whether penalty can be imposed when the inquiry report is in favour of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy (supra) cannot be relied upon in the present case since the facts in the said appeal are different. The delay occurred as counsel failed to appear and to inform the party. In the present case, appellant has opted not to file the appeal and paid the penalty. He cannot then contend that there is delay to file appeal. 5. It is also argued by her that it cannot be said that the livelihood of the appellant is affected by the imposition of penalty. The appellant has not adduced any evidence to show that any request for extending business to other ports were made or has been rejected. Even if such request is rejected, the appellant has remedy by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d counsel is that the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of HM Logistics Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is in favour of the Customs Broker and would be applicable to the impugned order and for this reason the penalty imposed is not sustainable. It is settled position of law that merely because a decision which is in favour come to the notice, it cannot be a ground to seek condonation of delay. The appellant has failed to promptly avail the appeal remedy. Though law of limitation is not meant to destroy the right of parties, it cannot favour those who are sleeping. In the present case, the appellant has deliberately opted not to file appeal initially. Thereafter, this appeal is filed only on the advice given that the penalty can ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
