9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 347X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmissioner of central Excise Coimbatore and the second SCN by the Commissioner of Customs Cochin for obtaining documents from the government records without authorization of the proper officer. It seen that these two notices are completely on different grounds issued by different Commissionerate for the offence committed by two different employees of the appellant. In the first show cause, it was found that Shri Murthy one of the employees of the appellant had obtained signatures of the authorized representatives of the exporter on blank shipping bills and the same were used for claiming fraudulent drawback. This fact was admitted before the enquiry officer and based on the enquiry report the matter was adjudicated - The impugned order whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d imposed a penalty of Rs.50,000/- under Regulation 22 and 23 of Customs Broker Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2013 and prohibited the Customs Broker from working in the jurisdictional area of the Cochin Customs Commissionerate till the completion of the adjudication proceedings against the Customs Broker, which is pending at Mumbai. 2. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, the learned counsel on behalf of the appellant submitted that the proceedings at the parent Commissionerate Mumbai were concluded and placed on record a copy of the Order-in-Original F. No. S/8-25/2011-Admn. (CHA) dated 27.3.2019 wherein the Commissioner had imposed penalty of Rs.50,000/- under Regulation 18 of CBLR 2018 with forfeiture of the full amount of securit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the course of his employment and not entirely in his personal capacity. The evidences on record shows that the CB is not directly involved in this unlawful, ineligible drawback claim. This act of CB strongly pointed towards the laxity and negligence on the part of the CB. I find that lack of stringent supervision and control on employees is on the part of CB, makes him accountable for whatever liability arises out of it. In the light of the findings by Inquiry Officer in his report dated 22.11.2006 at para 18 But the management of M/s. AFL is not guilty of wilful transgression of law with intent to defraud the Government. Accordingly, punishment commensurate to the extent of liability as envisaged in Regulation 20(1) of CHALR, 2004 is re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pleaded that since appropriate action was taken immediately against the erring employee a lenient view needs to be taken. 5. Since the proceedings before us are on entirely different, the Final order issued by the Mumbai Commissionerate will have no bearing in as much as the penalty is concerned. Moreover, the notices are on different employees of the same customs broker and the offences committed vary and commission of offence is at Coimbatore and Cochin, the orders issued by the Commissioner Mumbai cannot completely exonerate the appellant from penalty. However as per the impugned order the suspension of license in the jurisdiction of Cochin was only till the date of adjudication proceedings by Mumbai and the adjudications proceedings hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
