9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 470X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed signatory at Chennai. Further there is no allegation that they have got any undue financial benefits by abetting the illegality as alleged from the importer. Opportunity for extending cross examination as per Regulation 20(4) of the CBLR, 2013 - HELD THAT:- As per the evidence on record, to proceed against the Appellant, statements of different persons were relied by the adjudication authority. As per the judgment of the Hon ble High Court of Telangana in the matter of M/s Shasta Freight Services Pvt Ltd [ 2019 (9) TMI 363 - TELANGANA AND ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] , Regulation 20(4) of the CBLR is carefully worded. The entitlement of the Customs broker to cross examine is confined only to person examined in support of the grounds formin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. The consignments imported by M/s Antoni Decourel Organic Chemical were cleared through different clearing agents including the Appellant. They have cleared 33 consignments through Air Cargo Complex, Chennai during December, 2012 to April 2013. 30(thirty) Bills of entry were filed by Customs Broker M/s Ever Trust Shipping and Logistics Pvt., Ltd., and 3(three) Bills of entry were filed by the Appellant herein. Though the Adjudicating authority held that the Appellant is not directly involved in the act of their authorized signatory at Chennai, it is held that the Appellant had failed to supervise his employees and thereby violated Regulation 17(9) of CBLR, 2013. Accordingly, penalty of Rs.10,000/- was imposed. Aggrieved by said order, pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ulation 17(9) of CBLR, 2013, the Learned Counsel submits that there is neither an allegation regarding violation of Regulation 17(9) of CBLR, nor any action for the said violation was proposed in the Show Cause notice or Inquiry report. The finding of the Commissioner with respect to the violation of Regulation 17(9) is totally unsustainable. The Appellant cannot be held responsible for the omission on the part of the employees. The Learned Counsel relied on the following judgments/decisions, where it is held that for the employee s mis conduct, the CB shall not be penalized in the absence of any positive finding that the CB had failed to comply with the Regulations or engaged in the mis-conduct, which rendered them unfit to transact the bu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o cross examine is confined only to person examined in support of the grounds forming a basis of proceedings . Thus if statements of different persons were recorded during the investigation, Adjudication authority ought to have given an opportunity for cross examination before relying on such statements. Thus, condition precedent under Regulation 20(4) of the CBLR for considering the request of the Customs Broker for cross examination should have been satisfied. 8. In the present case, the entire proceedings are initiated based on the statement of employees and agents of the importer. Facts being so, to find out the genuiness of the statement, the Inquiry officer/Adjudication authority ought to have extended the opportunity for cross examin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
