Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the revocation of the customs broker licence and forfeiture of the security deposit were justified on the ground that the appellant's authorised employee filed export documents in fraudulent export transactions without proper authorisation and without verification of the exporter's credentials.
Analysis: The shipping bills for the fraudulent exports were filed in the appellant's name by its G-card holder and authorised signatory. The employee admitted filing the documents for consideration, and the materials showed that the appellant did not verify the exporter's credentials or the authenticity of the transaction. The regulatory scheme makes the customs broker responsible for the acts and omissions of its employees, and the appellant could not avoid liability for conduct done by an authorised signatory in the ordinary course of business. The alleged contraventions of the licensing regulations were found to be established on the record.
Conclusion: The revocation of the customs broker licence and forfeiture of the security deposit were upheld and the appeal was rejected.
Final Conclusion: The adjudicatory order imposing the regulatory consequences for the customs broker's employee-driven misconduct was sustained in full.
Ratio Decidendi: A customs broker is answerable for the acts and omissions of its authorised employees and is liable where they file documents in fraudulent transactions without proper authorisation and due verification.