9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 1270X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ess by the Respondent. In the opinion of this Court, since the requisite KYC documents had been submitted by the Respondent and the main irregularity was in respect of the exporter Shri. Rakesh Gupta, proprietor of M/s. U.P. Garments, whose Importer Exporter Code (hereinafter "IEC") had been misused by other exporters in conspiracy with each other, the Respondent's Customs Broker license cannot be cancelled for perpetuity. The Respondent has already suffered severe consequences due to the cancellation of the said license for several months. Conclusion - The Court is of the opinion that the impugned Final Order does not warrant any interference. Moreover, it is noted that the CESTAT also records that there is no ground set out in the Order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al, the Commissioner of Customs found certain irregularities and, inter alia, revocation of the Respondent's Customs Broker license was directed. The security deposit furnished by the Respondent was also forfeited and a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- was also imposed. 6. The said Order-in-Original was challenged by the Respondent in an appeal before the CESTAT and vide the impugned Final Order the CESTAT has set aside the revocation of the license. The reasoning given by the CESTAT is set out below:- "18. Regulations 20 (1) of the 2013 Regulations, as noticed above, provides that the Commissioner of Customs shall issue a notice in writing to the Customs Broker within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of the offence report. Even if th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 11 (n) has been violated is the fact that the KYC documents were not directly obtained from the exporter. This cannot be said to be a relevant ground for violation of Regulation 11 (n) of the 2013 Regulations as the KYC documents were submitted by the appellant. This apart, as to who ultimately billed cannot also be a relevant factor for holding that Regulation 11 (n) of the 2013 Regulations has been violated. 27. Thus, it is not possible to sustain the finding recorded by the Commissioner of Customs that Regulation 11 (n) of the 2013 Regulations has been violated. 28. In regard to violation of Regulation 17 (9) of 2013 Regulations, it is to be noticed that apart from the fact that the show cause notice does not contain any specifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
