9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 76X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n to say further that it was of the opinion that the enquiry officer has more reasonably concluded in the matter but still goes on to state that appellant at the most can be held guilty of contravention of Regulation 10 (n) of the CBLR. It also says that they do not find appellant was in any way responsible for any act of misconduct but was vicariously responsible for the acts of the employees. Once the CESTAT has come to a factual finding in Paragraph No.4.12 that the findings recorded by the Commissioner in respect of the charges framed against appellant under Regulation 10 (a), 10 (d), 10 (e), 10 (m) and 10 (n) of the CBLR has no merits, the question of appellant also being vicariously held responsible would not arise. The question is an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and it was continued vide an order dated 11th September 2020 pending enquiry under Regulation 17 of the CBLR. Show Cause Notice was issued to appellant calling upon appellant as to why the license issued to them under the CBLR should not be revoked and security deposited should not be forfeited and/or penalty should not be imposed upon them under Regulation 14 read with 17 of the CBLR. Appellant was held to have failed to comply with the provisions of the Regulations 10 (a), 10 (d), 10 (e), 10 (m) and 10 (n) of the CBLR. 4. An inquiry by the Deputy Director of Customs was also conducted and a report dated 1st April 2021 was filed. Charges were framed against appellant for violation of the Regulation 10 (a), 10 (d), 10 (e), 10 (m) and 10 (n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of license of all the licenses and the cards which appellant was directed to surrender but nevertheless went ahead and imposed penalty of Rs. 25,000/- instead of Rs.50,000/- originally imposed in the order in original. It is against this final conclusion of imposing penalty albeit of a lesser amount appellant has approached this court. 6. In Paragraph No. 4.9 the CESTAT has observed and rightly so that the role of customs broker, which the appellant was, is limited to facilitation of the imports and exports by filing the documents after due verification. It is also held that appellant had no role to play beyond what is envisaged in terms of any regulation under the CBLR and if there is a fraudulent credit availed by any party, it is a mat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the findings recorded by the Principal Commissioner, in respect of any of the charges framed against the appellant under regulation 10 (a), (d), (e), (m) and (n), whereas the findings recorded by the enquiry officer are more justifiable and logical. 8. The CESTAT instead of stopping at this finding has proceeded by saying that even if it holds that appellant is guilty of the charges levelled against them then also the license cannot be revoked for the reasons in the circumstances of the case. The CESTAT went on to say further that it was of the opinion that the enquiry officer has more reasonably concluded in the matter but still goes on to state that appellant at the most can be held guilty of contravention of Regulation 10 (n) of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
