9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 1119X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the appellant verified the IEC and GST registration from the official website of DGFT and GSTIN and also the PAN and Aadhar details. From such facts, it is clear that the appellant has done the duty of verification as required by an ordinary prudent person while handling customs clearance work. Time Limitation - Compliance with Regulation 17(1) of CBLR, 2018 or not - HELD THAT:- As per this Regulation, the Show Cause Notice under CBLR 2018 should be issued within 90 days from the date of receipt of the offence report - In the present case, there is no separate offence report. The Show Cause Notice under section 124 was issued to the appellant on 27.2.2019. The said Show Cause Notice can be considered as an offence report since the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ued Show Cause Notice dated 27.2.2019 under section 124 of Customs Act to various persons including the appellant calling upon the appellant to show cause why the license issued to them should not be revoked and the security deposited should not be forfeited and penalty should not be imposed. After due process of law, the original authority imposed a penalty of ₹ 50,000/- on the appellant and ordered for forfeiture of part amount of the security deposit to the tune of ₹ 25,000/-. Aggrieved by such order, the appellant is now before the Tribunal. 2. On behalf of the appellant, ld. Counsel Ms. A. Aruna appeared and argued the matter. She submitted that the proceedings are vitiated by not complying with the time limit prescribed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... obtained the KYC, authorization, IEC, Aadhar, electrical consumption card, GST registration, PAN card and other documents from the exporter. Further, it had also the purchase invoice for the goods under export. Thus, the appellant had taken all precautions and had done what ordinarily be done by any prudent person in handling export of a client. They had also checked the official website of DGFT and GSTIN and verified the PAN and Aadhar details of the exporter. For these reasons, the findings of the adjudicating authority that the appellant had not complied with Regulation 10(a) of CBLR, 2018 is against the facts of the case. She prayed that the impugned order may be set aside. 4. The ld. AR Shri L. Nandakumar appeared and argued for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oms Act, 1962 so as to prevent recurrence of any illegal activities in their business transaction before the Customs Department. 7. In para 14.1, the adjudicating authority has held that they have violated Regulation 10(a) of CBLR, 2018 for which the penalty as well as forfeiture of security deposit has been done. In para 14.4, the adjudicating authority has noted that the appellant verified the IEC and GST registration from the official website of DGFT and GSTIN and also the PAN and Aadhar details. From such facts, it is clear that the appellant has done the duty of verification as required by an ordinary prudent person while handling customs clearance work. Further on the issue of limitation, I find that the department has not complie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
