9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 74X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roles played by the Appellant and that which amounted to connivance etc., since it is the settled position of law that allegations howsoever strong, cannot take the place of proof. The revocation of licence was definitely not called for and hence the impugned order is set aside in so far as it relates to the revocation of Customs Broker Licence. But, however, since the Appellant was also unable to satisfy us on the aspect of advising its client and exercising due diligence, we are of the opinion that it would meet the ends of justice if a penalty by way of deterrent is imposed, inasmuch as, instead of forfeiture of the full Security Deposit, Rs.25,000/- of the sum is ordered to be forfeited under the provisions of Regulation 14 of CBLR, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proceeds; that it was the Appellant who was appointed as Customs Broker in all the above exports; that such fraudulent activity of the scale involved could not be possible without the abetment and willful participation of the Appellant and that the Appellant was aware of the above exports and was directly involved in the fraudulent act. 4. The Revenue through the appropriate authority chose to suspend the Customs Broker Licence of the Appellant with immediate effect vide C.B. Order No.26/2019 dated 27.03.2019 under Regulation 16(1) of Customs Broker Licencing Regulation (CBLR), 2018 and the Customs Broker was given an opportunity of post suspensional hearing. In response, the Appellant sought for the provision of relied upon documents, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2013. 6. Regulation 10(d) talks of advice by a Customs Broker to his client to comply with the provisions of the Act and 10(e) talks of the due diligence on the part of the Customs Broker and apparently, nowhere in the impugned order has the Commissioner brought on record as to on what basis did he come to the conclusion that the Appellant did not exercise due diligence. Be that as it may, the allegation of violation of Regulation 10(d) and 10(e) would not, in our opinion, invite a disproportionate punishment requiring the authority to curtail the very livelihood of the Customs Broker and the persons it has employed. 7. The Ld.Commissioner in the impugned order has also recorded the report of the Inquiry Officer, who has conveniently ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
