9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 1264X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... view taken by the learned Tribunal, more particularly, when it is not in dispute that Arup Ghosh has been handling the clearance work for the respondent in the capacity of a G Card holder and authorised representative. Allegation against the respondent was that they violated the regulation 10(d) of the CBLR - Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that there was no evidence available on record to substantiate the allegation that the respondent has not advised their clients properly. Therefore, the finding rendered by the Tribunal in this regard stands affirmed. Violation of Regulation 10(m) - Noting the facts the Tribunal, in our view, rightly held that there was no record to prove that the respondent has not performed its duties e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal and upholding the relief granted to the respondent. The substantial questions of law were answered against the appellant revenue, and the stay application was also dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eved by the same the department has filed the present appeal. With regard to the violation of Regulation 1(4) of the CBLR 2018, the allegation against the respondent assessee was that the respondent had transferred all works related to clearance of under invoiced raw human hair to one Arup Ghosh and he has misused the license to acquire the consignments of raw human hair through Airport Cargo Complex, Kolkata. In this regard, a statement recorded from the proprietor of the respondent was referred to wherein he stated to have admitted that he used to get payments by transfer from bank account of L.G. Enterprises only irrespective of the exporters and this L.G. Enterprises is a sister concern of M/s. Just Logistic -1, owned by Arup Ghosh. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Regulation 1(4) of the CBLR 2018. Noting the factual position, we affirm the view taken by the learned Tribunal, more particularly, when it is not in dispute that Arup Ghosh has been handling the clearance work for the respondent in the capacity of a G Card holder and authorised representative. The next allegation against the respondent was that they violated the regulation 10(d) of the CBLR which mandates that Customs broker has to advise his clients to comply with the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 and in the case the clients fail to comply with the provisions of the said Act, the Customs broker will be held responsible and may result in cancellation or suspension of the license. The Tribunal took note of the factual position tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... responsible for all acts and omissions of its employees. The Tribunal took note of the fact that Arup Ghosh, the G-Card holder and authorised representative of the respondent, has handled the clearance work for the exporter M/s. S. S. Impex, Hydrabad and the department has not raised any objection in this regard. Furthermore, as noted previously, the shipping bill in question was not filed by the respondent but was filed by Just Logistic-1 and, therefore, the Tribunal rightly held that the respondent cannot be held liable for any violation that might have been committed by Just Logistic-1. Therefore, the finding rendered by the Tribunal in this regard also stands affirmed. The next allegation against the respondent was with regard to viola ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
