9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 1019X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... k related to clearance of cargo or baggage and to advise his client to comply with requisite statutory provisions and to verify the correctness of antecedents and documents of his client. The appellant herein was the agent for the exporter who was exporting the products as per export quality control and inspection Act, 1963 section 7 thereof. There is no denial either of the appellant or even of the exporter that the said EIA certificate was not annexed with the Shipping Bills. There is a clear admission that the Certificate was not issued to the exporter at the time of filing of the impugned shipping bill. This is otherwise apparent from the record that the said certificate was obtained on 23.12.2019 i.e. after filing of the shipping bi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... without complete and valid documentation. Pursuant to said intelligence, an inquiry was initiated against the exporter during which it came to light that the exporter was not possessing Export inspection Agency (EIA) Certificate as was mandatorily required by a milk product exporter in terms of Section 7 of Export (Quality Control inspection) Act, 1963. There has been an admission of the exporter about not possessing the said certificate at the relevant time and export was made through the CHA, the present appellant. Since the CHA desposed his total ignorance about the certificate, however, acknowledged that the exporter did not possess the EIA Certificate that the violation of regulation 10 (e) of Customs Broker Licenses Regulation 2013 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... estion, the certificate was demanded. Ld. Counsel has mentioned that the unawareness of the exporter as well as of the appellant about the necessity of the said EIA certificate gave the confirmed bonafide belief to the exporter as well as to the appellant that the EIA Certificate is not a mandatory requirement. It was also because of the reason that even the custom officials did not require the said certificate while clearing 50 other shipping bills of the appellant. It is impressed upon that the said fact is sufficient to hold that there was no malafide intent at least with the appellant to not to comply with the relevant law. Imposition of penalty being a penal action is therefore, not warranted in case of the appellant. The penalty is im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it is appreciated that irrespective of all the submissions of the appellant there still remains the violation of CBLR on part of the appellant. Hence, there is no infirmity in the order of Commissioner (Appeals) when imposition of penalty upon custom broker i.e. the appellant has been confirmed. Appeal is therefore, prayed to be dismissed. 7. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the record, I observe and hold as follows:- The allegation against the appellant which initiated the present proceedings against him culminating into imposition of penalty of ₹ 50,000/- is that he is alleged to have violated Regulations 10(d), 10 (e) and 10 (n) of CBLR, 2018. The provision reads as follows:- 10. Obligations of Customs B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er compliance of Regulation 10 (n) of CBLR 2018. 9. I observe that there is no denial either of the appellant or even of the exporter that the said EIA certificate was not annexed with the Shipping Bills. There is a clear admission that the Certificate was not issued to the exporter at the time of filing of the impugned shipping bill. This is otherwise apparent from the record that the said certificate was obtained on 23.12.2019 i.e. after filing of the shipping bills and even after the initiation of the impugned investigation. The said observation is sufficient for me to hold the non-compliance of Regulation 10 (e) by the appellant. As per Regulation 10 (d) the appellant has another statutory duty of informing with diligence his client ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... HA the punishment listed in the Regulations.... We approve the aforesaid observations of the CEGAT, West Zonal Bench, Mumbai and unhesitatingly hold that this misconduct has to be seriously viewed. 16 . Resultantly, we allow the appeal and set aside the orders of the High Court and the Tribunal and restore that of the Commissioner. There shall be no order as to costs. 10. Keeping in view the said finding, I do not find any infirmity in the order where the reasonable benefit of the given facts and circumstances has already been extended in favour of the appellant by the adjudicating authority below by not revoking the license and by not forfeiting the security deposit. Imposition of penalty is accordingly, held to be justified. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
