9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 112X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hall not exceed ₹50,000 on Customs Broker, subject to any of the grounds provided thereunder, i.e. (a) there should be a failure to comply with any of the conditions of bonds executed under Regulation 8(b)(b); failure to comply with any of the Regulations; and (c) committing any misconduct. There is no dispute that (d), (e) & (f) are not relevant here. The Competent Authority who was seized of the matter has felt it proper to pass order after considering the Inquiry Report and the representations made by the Customs Broker, which order is clearly passed as he 'deemed fit'. Hence, there are no fault with the exercise of the jurisdiction, which was clearly the domain of the said Authority. Hence, it cannot be entertained that the penal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal folder before us, has opined that the charges of violation of Regulations 11 (a) (n) and 17(9) stood proved, but the violation of Regulation 11(d) stood not proved. 2. Insofar as the Revenue's Appeal is concerned, from the Grounds of Appeal and upon hearing the ld. Departmental Representative Sri Anoop Singh, Joint Commissioner, we find that the Revenue is aggrieved because: (i) there is no discussion or findings recorded with reference to charges under Regulation 11(n) and 17(9) of CBLR and hence, impugned order is incomplete and legally unsustainable; (ii) the proposal in the SCN was for action under Regulation 18, but however, in the OIO, no action under Regulation 18 is taken; and (iii) the decision of the Adjudicating Authority i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... employees of the Customs Broker and accordingly, imposes a penalty of ₹50,000. 4.2 From the above order, however, we find that the Competent Authority who was seized of the matter has felt it proper to pass order after considering the Inquiry Report and the representations made by the Customs Broker, which order is clearly passed as he 'deemed fit'. Hence, we do not find any fault with the exercise of the jurisdiction, which was clearly the domain of the said Authority. Hence, we cannot entertain that the penalty imposed was not proportionate to the gravity of the offence, if at all committed. Hence, we do not find any error. However, in the cross appeal/objection, the Customs Broker has even challenged the said imposition of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar as the observation that the Customs Broker had failed to exercise supervision of the employee in terms of Regulation 17(9), it is again submitted that the identity and antecedents of the exporter had already been verified by the very Department before the issue of letter of Factory Stuffing Permission granted to the exporter vide L.O.F.S.P. No.182/2012-13 dated 30.05.2012. There is also an additional document in the form of Certificate issued by Agriculture & Processed Food Products Export Development Authority, dated 17.9.2010 to confirm/support that the exporter was genuine and exporting the agricultural processed products. The details furnished in their return submissions including these documents have been conveniently ignored by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
