9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 1367X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Panel Pin Manufacturing Company Pvt. Ltd. had initiated the clearance work without meeting authorized person of the exporter and work was received through many people in between acting as middlemen. HELD THAT:- Reading the order of adjudication does not show as to whether the Department/DRA investigated as to how seal came to be fixed by the authorities and whether there was any involvement of the officials in the said process. Be that as it may, the learned Tribunal has considered the facts of the case and has arrived at the finding that the relevant provisions of the CBLR does not envisage physical verification of the exporters and antecedents nor verification of the factory premises of the exporter concerned. One other aspect which nee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mr. Kaustav Kanti Maiti, Adv. For the Respondent : Ms. Micky Chowdhury, Adv. Mr. B.N. Pal, Adv. The Court : This appeal filed by the Customs department under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 (the Act). The appeal was admitted on 13th January, 2021 on the following substantial questions of law :- i) Whether setting aside of the order in original by the Learned Tribunal is justified when the respondent has not followed any of the condition mentioned under Regulation 11(a), 11(d), (k) and 11(n) of the CBLR 2013 ? ii) Whether the Learned Tribunal s order is correct when it is admitted and apparent on the face of the record that the respondent has not obtained any job clearance from the exporter and the authorization has been obtained throu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Commissioner of Customs revoking the Customs Broker License granted to the respondent. The only allegation in the show cause notice issued by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) is that the respondent on receipt of the KYC documents, authorization letter IEC of M/s. Panel Pin Manufacturing Company Pvt. Ltd. had initiated the clearance work without meeting authorized person of the exporter and work was received through many people in between acting as middlemen. Apart from this there appears to have been no other specific allegation of any malpractice or misfeasance. This aspect was considered by the Tribunal and on facts it concluded that respondent cannot be penalized for not physically interacting with the exporter which is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llick. This order was challenged before the Tribunal in Customs Appeal No.76489 of 2019, which appeal was allowed by the learned Tribunal by order dated 6th February, 2024 and in paragraph 10 of the said order the Tribual has held that it is a settled proposition in law that for imposition of penalty it is necessary to establish a substantive role on the part of the concerned person or the shipper of mens ria on the part of such person. After pointing out the above legal position, the Tribunal set aside the finding of the adjudicating authority. 8. The said order appears to have attained finality. One more aspect which has been brought to our notice by the learned counsel for the respondent is that the DRI initiated criminal proceedings aga ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
