9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 112X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... parent exercise of the powers conferred under Regulation 20(7) read with Regulation 18 of CBLR, 2013, felt it proper to impose a penalty of Rs.50,000, for alleged violations of Regulations 11(a) and 11(d) of CBLR ibid. The said OIO is apparently passed after taking into consideration the Inquiry Report of the Assistant Commissioner dated 09.05.2016. The said Inquiry Report which is part of the appeal 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 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that the Commissioner has at para 19 reproduced the allegations against the Customs Broker. Thereafter, he has gone by the statement of Manager of M/s. Shri Krishna Logistics Solutions to hold that Regulations 11(a) & (b) have been violated and that the 'Customs Broker committed mistake to verify the exporter, however, keeping in view of the extreme hardship that will be suffered by the employees of the Customs Broker and accordingly, imposes a penalty of Rs.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'. Hen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l after getting the approval from the Joint/Additional Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise as prescribed by the Board Circular in connection with granting permission of factory stuffing. The Inquiry Report having ignored this specific factual aspect, is clearly contrary to the documentary evidence available with the Department itself and therefore, cannot be accepted. Insofar 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
