9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 1362X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he licence of a Customs Broker for all infractions of the Regulations. The reason assigned by the Tribunal, i.e., that there was retraction of the statement made by the witness about subletting of the licence by the respondent to him stating that there was duress at the time when the statement was taken from him under Section 108 of the Act, and the officials of the Revenue had not confronted him with the bank transfers to establish that the licence was sublet by the respondent to the said Shri S. Uma Mahesh for consideration, and giving of benefit of doubt to the respondent, cannot be said to be perverse based on no evidence or contrary to law. The Tribunal had rightly exercised its jurisdiction and the punishment imposed on the respond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 108 of the Act stated that he was the Managing Partner of M/s. V.D. Logistics which has 20 staff and that he was using the Customs Broker licence of the respondent from January, 2010 to process exports and that he was paying the respondent ₹ 25,000/- per month through NEFT to the account of the respondent. 6. The Department then issued a show cause notice to the respondent under Regulation 18 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 (for brevity, the Regulations ) proposing revocation of the licence of the respondent and forfeiture of part or whole of the security and imposition of penalty not exceeding ₹ 50,000/- on the respondent. 7. The respondent contested the show cause notice stating that he himself file ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid individual under duress. He stated that the prohibition of the operation of the respondent in Bangalore Customs House was already revoked by the Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore and therefore, the instant proceedings may also be dropped and the Order-in-Original be set aside. 12. The appellant s Representative however supported the findings of the Adjudicating Authority. 13. By the impugned order dated 26-3-2019 in Final Order No. A/30419/2019, the Tribunal found force in the contention of the Revenue that the respondent had sublet his licence for shipping the bills in question, but held that once Shri S. Uma Mahesh retracted the statement during the cross-examination, the officers of the Revenue should have further questioned h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... licence, setting aside the forfeiture of the security deposit and only imposing penalty of ₹ 50,000/- on the respondent. 17. A reading of Regulation 18 of the Regulations indicates that the various options/punishments indicated therein are in the alternative and it is not mandatory for the Adjudicating Authority to revoke the licence of a Customs Broker for all infractions of the Regulations. The reason assigned by the Tribunal, i.e., that there was retraction of the statement made by the witness about subletting of the licence by the respondent to him stating that there was duress at the time when the statement was taken from him under Section 108 of the Act, and the officials of the Revenue had not confronted him with the bank tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
