Issues: (i) whether the 1% margin retained by the appellant on purchase and sale of goods at trade discount amounted to commission liable to service tax; (ii) whether, after excluding such amount, the taxable services in each year remained within the exemption threshold under Notification No. 33/2012-ST dated 20.6.2012.

Issue (i): whether the 1% margin retained by the appellant on purchase and sale of goods at trade discount amounted to commission liable to service tax.

Analysis: The appellant purchased goods on its own account from registered sellers at a discount and resold them on its own account at a different discount to registered buyers. The arrangement was principal-to-principal and not one of agency. A commission agent acts on behalf of another, does not take title to the goods, and earns commission for connecting buyer and seller. A trade discount retained in buying and selling transactions is not the same as commission merely because the margin is small or the counterparties are pre-registered.

Conclusion: The 1% margin was trade profit and not commission. The service tax demand on the alleged commission income was not sustainable and was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): whether, after excluding such amount, the taxable services in each year remained within the exemption threshold under Notification No. 33/2012-ST dated 20.6.2012.

Analysis: Once the alleged commission income was excluded, the value of taxable services for each year fell below the exemption limit of Rs. 10,00,000. The remaining service values for the relevant years were below the threshold prescribed for service tax liability under the notification.

Conclusion: The remaining taxable value was exempt and no service tax was payable on that count.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order could not be sustained, and the appeal succeeded with consequential relief to the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: A person buying and selling goods on its own account on a principal-to-principal basis at trade discount is not a commission agent, and the resulting trading margin cannot be taxed as commission income for service tax purposes.

Issues: (i) Whether bail in a commercial quantity NDPS could be sustained without considering the twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act; (ii) whether the respondent's period of custody warranted bail on the ground of prolonged incarceration under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether bail in a commercial quantity NDPS matter could be sustained without considering the twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

Analysis: The offences arose from recovery of commercial quantity contraband, attracting the statutory bar under Section 37. The High Court's order did not record satisfaction on the twin requirements that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and that he is not likely to commit an offence while on bail. In such cases, consideration of these conditions is mandatory and cannot be bypassed by a liberal approach to bail.

Conclusion: The bail order could not be sustained and was rightly interfered with, in favour of the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the respondent's period of custody warranted bail on the ground of prolonged incarceration under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The respondent had undergone about 1 year and 7 months of custody in a case carrying a maximum sentence of twenty years, and the Court held that this period did not constitute such prolonged incarceration as to override the statutory restrictions applicable to the case. The existence of similar antecedents further weighed against satisfaction of the requirement that he was not likely to commit an offence while on bail.

Conclusion: No bail was warranted on the ground of prolonged incarceration, in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the grant of regular bail was set aside, and the respondent was denied bail under the governing NDPS bail standard.

Ratio Decidendi: In cases involving commercial quantity under the NDPS Act, courts must strictly apply Section 37 and record satisfaction of the twin conditions before granting bail, and custody of a relatively short duration does not by itself justify release where those conditions are not met.

Issues: Whether late fee under Section 47(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is leviable for non-filing of the annual return in Form GSTR-9; and whether penalty under Section 125 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 can also be imposed for such default.

Analysis: Section 47(2) provides for late fee where a registered person fails to furnish the return required under Section 44 by the due date, and the levy operates for continuing default subject to the statutory cap. The contention that late fee can be levied only for belated filing and not for non-filing was rejected on the plain language of the provision. As to penalty, Section 125 applies where contravention of GST provisions or rules is not otherwise visited with a separate penalty. Since no separate penalty was prescribed for failure to file the annual return, the penalty imposed was held to be in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The challenge to the levy of late fee and penalty failed, and interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was held unwarranted.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained on merits and the impugned order imposing late fee and penalty was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 47(2) authorises late fee for failure to furnish the prescribed return by the due date, and penalty under Section 125 is sustainable where no separate penalty is specifically provided for the default.

Issues: Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) passed a sustainable appellate order while dealing with the disallowance of quantity discount and price support or price difference discount in finalization of provisional assessments, and whether the matter required remand for fresh decision.

Analysis: The Tribunal found that the first appellate authority had not independently examined the grounds of appeal, the evidence, or the relevant statutory provisions, but had merely reproduced the adjudication findings and recorded a blanket statement that no reason existed to interfere. Such an approach was held to be a non-speaking order and contrary to the obligation of a quasi-judicial appellate authority to pass a reasoned decision. The Tribunal also held that the Commissioner (Appeals) had travelled beyond the scope of the appeal by making observations on freight and insurance deductions which were not under challenge, and that the merits of the deductions could not be finally adjudicated without proper factual findings by the first appellate authority.

Conclusion: The impugned appellate order was unsustainable and the appeals were remanded for fresh decision on merits after independent consideration of all grounds, evidence and submissions. The deductions already allowed in the orders-in-original were left undisturbed.

Issues: Whether the cancellation of GST registration and the appellate order confirming it should be quashed and registration restored, subject to compliance with filing of returns and payment of tax dues.

Analysis: The cancellation had been made ex parte. The petitioner expressed willingness to file all pending returns and to pay tax, interest, and penalty once the portal enabled compliance. In such circumstances, the Court followed its consistent approach of permitting restoration of registration where the assessee undertakes to regularise compliance within a reasonable time.

Conclusion: The cancellation order and the appellate order were quashed, and restoration of registration was directed subject to the petitioner uploading the returns and offering tax, interest, and penalty within two weeks from the date the portal enables such compliance.

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to provisional release of seized gold and gold jewellery pending adjudication under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: The seized gold and gold jewellery were found to be carried for business purposes and supported by stock records maintained under GST law. The goods were not shown to be imported articles or prohibited goods. The legal position applied was that provisional release should not be refused merely because adjudication is pending or confiscation may later be ordered, since confiscable goods can still be provisionally released on furnishing bond and security. The Tribunal also noted that gold is not prohibited for import and, if ultimately confiscated, redemption fine under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 would remain available. Reliance on statements recorded during investigation was held insufficient to deny provisional release at this stage.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to provisional release of the seized gold and gold jewellery, subject to bond and bank guarantee conditions.

Issues: Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) had power under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 to remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority for fresh decision in a service tax appeal.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that the language of Section 85(4) of the Finance Act, 1994 is materially different from Section 35A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Section 85(4) empowers the Commissioner (Appeals) to pass such orders as he thinks fit, and this wider wording includes the power to remand the matter in appropriate cases. Section 85(5) was treated as governing only procedural aspects and not as curtailing the substantive appellate power under Section 85(4). The Tribunal followed the view that the Central Excise decisions restricting remand power under Section 35A do not apply to service tax appeals under Section 85.

Conclusion: The Commissioner (Appeals) was competent to remand the matter, and the remand order was upheld. The department's appeal was dismissed.

Issues: (i) Whether the reassessment for the assessment year 1999-2000 was valid under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. (ii) Whether provision for site restoration expenditure was allowable as a deduction under section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and whether it could be excluded from adjustment while computing book profits under section 115JA of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issue (i): Whether the reassessment for the assessment year 1999-2000 was valid under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The reassessment was initiated after the expiry of time, and the record did not show a valid basis to sustain reopening. The proceedings were also linked to the absence of proper compliance with the reassessment procedure, including service of reasons and notice. In the absence of a valid justification for reopening, the reassessment could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The reassessment was invalid and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether provision for site restoration expenditure was allowable as a deduction under section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and whether it could be excluded from adjustment while computing book profits under section 115JA of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The site restoration obligation arose from the production sharing contract and formed part of petroleum operations. The liability was treated as an ascertained liability, and the profit and loss account prepared in accordance with the Companies Act could not be disturbed except to the extent permitted by the Explanation to the MAT provision. The Tribunal's view that the expenditure could be considered only under section 115JA was held to be incorrect, and the assessee's claim for deduction under the normal business provision was upheld.

Conclusion: The provision for site restoration expenditure was allowable in favour of the assessee, and the Revenue's challenge to the MAT treatment also failed.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue's appeals failed in entirety, the reassessment for the earlier year was quashed, and the assessee's entitlement to deduction for site restoration expenditure was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: A reopening under section 147 cannot stand without a valid and timely basis, and a contractual site-restoration liability that is ascertained and reflected in the accounts cannot be denied merely by treating it as outside the ordinary business deduction framework or by disturbing the profit and loss account beyond the limited MAT adjustments permitted by law.

Issues: (i) Whether the amount collected towards transportation and insurance charges was taxable as Business Support Service or remained outside service tax as transportation of goods by road other than through a goods transport agency; (ii) Whether service tax was payable under reverse charge on services received by the appellant's foreign branch for use in Ethiopia; (iii) Whether the extended period of limitation and the consequential interest and penalties were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the amount collected towards transportation and insurance charges was taxable as Business Support Service or remained outside service tax as transportation of goods by road other than through a goods transport agency.

Analysis: For the pre-negative list period, service tax on transport of goods by road applied only where the service was rendered by a goods transport agency issuing a consignment note. For the post-June 2012 regime, transportation of goods by road continued to remain outside the taxable net except where the service was rendered by a goods transport agency or courier agency. The contract and the charging structure showed that the disputed receipts represented transportation activity, with insurance being incidental and bundled with the main transportation arrangement. The Department's attempt to reclassify the activity as Business Support Service was not accepted.

Conclusion: The amount collected towards transportation and insurance charges was not taxable as Business Support Service, and the demand on this count failed.

Issue (ii): Whether service tax was payable under reverse charge on services received by the appellant's foreign branch for use in Ethiopia.

Analysis: The disputed accounting services were rendered outside India and were received by the appellant's branch office in Ethiopia for local compliance there. The branch and the Indian office were to be treated as separate establishments for the relevant purpose, and the services were neither received in India nor used in India. On that basis, the transaction did not attract service tax in India under the import of services framework.

Conclusion: No service tax was payable under reverse charge on the foreign branch's accounting services.

Issue (iii): Whether the extended period of limitation and the consequential interest and penalties were sustainable.

Analysis: The demand was founded on figures disclosed in the assessee's financial records and balance sheets, without any independent investigation establishing deliberate suppression. When the very basis of demand is publicly available financial material, suppression with intent to evade cannot be inferred. Since the extended period could not be invoked, the penalty under the wilful suppression provision also could not survive, and interest being consequential to the demand likewise failed.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was unsustainable, and the interest and penalties were also set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded on merits and limitation, the impugned order was set aside, and the assessee obtained complete relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Transportation of goods by road is taxable only within the statutory parameters applicable to goods transport agencies, and where the demand is wholly based on disclosed financial records without proof of suppression, the extended period and penalty provisions cannot be invoked.

Outcome: Special leave petition dismissed, and time to file the appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was extended by two weeks.

Issues: Whether the assessment order and consequential demand notice under Section 73(9) of the CGST/KGST regime were liable to be quashed for non-consideration of the reply and supporting documents, and whether the matter required remand for fresh adjudication after hearing the petitioner.

Analysis: The record showed that the petitioner had filed a detailed reply to the show-cause notice and had also uploaded supporting documents on the portal, yet the impugned order proceeded on the basis that no reply had been filed. Since the reply and documents were available on record but were not considered, the adjudication was vitiated by breach of natural justice.

Conclusion: The impugned order and the DRC-07 demand were quashed, and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration after taking the petitioner's reply and documents on record and affording an opportunity of hearing.

Final Conclusion: The dispute was sent back to the adjudicating authority for a de novo decision on merits after compliance with fair hearing requirements.

Ratio Decidendi: An adjudication that ignores a duly filed reply and supporting material is unsustainable for violation of natural justice and must be set aside with a fresh hearing.

Outcome: The Special Leave Petition was disposed of with liberty to challenge the subsequent order in original, and no interference was made with the impugned High Court order.

Issues: Whether the Revenue was justified in re-deducting and re-quantifying Cenvat credit while implementing the earlier Tribunal order directing refund of amounts deposited during litigation.

Analysis: The amounts deposited by the appellants during the pendency of proceedings were treated as pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the earlier order had already accepted that the refund would be granted after deducting the Cenvat credit availed on inputs used in the manufacture of captively consumed clinker. The original orders passed in 2016 had already quantified the refundable amounts after verification and deduction of the relevant Cenvat credit, and no appeal was filed by the Revenue against that quantification. The Tribunal held that the earlier direction could not be read as authorising a second deduction or fresh re-quantification of the same credit, and that any dispute regarding admissibility of credit had to be pursued separately in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The Revenue was not entitled to reopen the concluded quantification or deduct the Cenvat credit again, and the refund, as earlier quantified, was payable to the assessees.

Issues: (i) Whether the product manufactured and cleared by the appellant was classifiable as chewing tobacco under CETI 2403 99 10 or as zarda scented tobacco under CETI 2403 99 30, and whether the duty demand and penalty under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could survive; (ii) Whether penalties imposed on M/s. R.R. Jhiriwal, Robin Jhiriwal and Rajan Jhiriwal under rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the product manufactured and cleared by the appellant was classifiable as chewing tobacco under CETI 2403 99 10 or as zarda scented tobacco under CETI 2403 99 30, and whether the duty demand and penalty under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could survive.

Analysis: The product had consistently been declared in ER-1 returns as chewing tobacco under CETI 2403 99 10, and the department had itself repeatedly passed orders classifying the same product under that tariff entry from 2012 onwards. In these circumstances, the department could not successfully contend, on the basis of the later proceedings, that the same product was zarda scented tobacco under CETI 2403 99 30. Once the classification in favour of chewing tobacco was accepted on the facts, the differential duty demand founded on the contrary classification could not stand, and the consequential penalty under section 11AC also failed.

Conclusion: The product was held classifiable as chewing tobacco under CETI 2403 99 10, and the demand of duty, interest and the section 11AC penalty were set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether penalties imposed on M/s. R.R. Jhiriwal, Robin Jhiriwal and Rajan Jhiriwal under rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 were sustainable.

Analysis: Rule 26 required a finding that the goods were liable to confiscation. The impugned order did not contain a proper discussion or finding on confiscability, and the mere imposition of rule 26 penalty could not cure that defect. In the absence of the essential statutory ingredient, the penalties could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The penalties imposed under rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 were unsustainable and were set aside.

Final Conclusion: The impugned adjudication order was held unsustainable in law, and all connected appeals were allowed with the entire adverse duty and penalty burden removed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the department has consistently treated the goods under one tariff entry and the adjudication order does not record the essential finding that the goods are liable to confiscation, the contrary duty demand and rule 26 penalty cannot be sustained.

Issues: Whether the High Court should interfere with the appellate order rejecting the GST appeal as time-barred and condone the one-day delay in filing the appeal beyond the period extendable by the Appellate Authority.

Analysis: The appeal was filed after the prescribed period under Section 107(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and beyond the further one-month period for condonation under Section 107(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court relied on its earlier view that the statutory bar on condonation beyond one month does not curtail the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court where refusal to condone would result in gross injustice. Considering that the delay was only one day and the explanation offered by the petitioner was found acceptable, the Court held that the matter deserved consideration on merits.

Conclusion: The delay was condoned and the rejection order was set aside, with the appeal remitted to the Appellate Authority for fresh decision on merits in accordance with law.

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to bail in a GST prosecution involving alleged illegal availing of input tax credit, having regard to the nature of the evidence, the period of custody, the stage of investigation, and the absence of material showing likelihood of tampering with evidence or non-cooperation.

Analysis: The petition arose from allegations under the GST law that invoices were issued and used without actual supply of goods and that wrongful input tax credit had been claimed. The Court noted that the petitioner had remained in custody for more than three and a half months, the prosecution case was substantially documentary in nature, and the investigation had already secured the relevant records. The Court also took into account the settled principles that bail is the rule, that pre-trial incarceration should not be prolonged without necessity, and that seriousness of the offence alone does not justify denial of bail where there is no shown risk of absconding, tampering with evidence, or non-participation in trial. Reliance was placed on the constitutional protection of personal liberty and the need for a speedy trial, along with the requirement that arrest and continued custody must be justified by material circumstances.

Conclusion: The petitioner was held entitled to bail, and the bail petition was allowed.

Issues: Whether amounts paid by the assessee to a non-resident parent company and third parties under the Production Sharing Contract, described as reimbursement of expenses, were chargeable to tax so as to attract deduction at source under Section 195 of the Income-tax Act, 1961; whether failure to deduct tax justified interest under Sections 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961; and whether the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement and Section 90 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 afforded relief.

Analysis: The payments were examined in the context of Sections 42, 44BB, 90, 195, 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, together with the accounting terms of the Production Sharing Contract. The Court accepted that where expenditure is truly reimbursed on a cost-to-cost basis, tax consequences may differ, but held that a consolidated claim styled as reimbursement, without substantiated break-up or particulars showing the nature of each expense, cannot be treated as exempt from tax. The arm's length clause in the contract was held not to create a presumption that the sums were outside the tax net. The Court further held that, during the relevant assessment years, treaty relief under the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement was not available to the assessee in the manner claimed.

Conclusion: The amounts were held assessable to tax, the assessee was held liable to deduct tax at source, and the levy of interest for default in deduction was upheld; the alternate plea based on treaty relief was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The assessee's challenge failed on the substantive taxability issue and on the consequential TDS and interest liability, and the appeals were dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A consolidated reimbursement claim to a non-resident under a production sharing arrangement is taxable for TDS purposes unless the payer substantiates the underlying expenditure with sufficient particulars and obtains the necessary determination under Section 195(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issues: (i) Whether the seizure of gold bars and jewellery in a town seizure case was supported by a reasonable belief of smuggling so as to justify invocation of the presumption under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962. (ii) Whether the statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the call data records, without compliance with Section 138B of the Customs Act, 1962 and without independent corroboration, were sufficient to sustain confiscation and penalties.

Issue (i): Whether the seizure of gold bars and jewellery in a town seizure case was supported by a reasonable belief of smuggling so as to justify invocation of the presumption under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: The seized goods were found in a town seizure, without foreign markings, and the record did not disclose any cogent material establishing foreign origin or illicit import. The presumption under Section 123 could arise only after the seizing authority had a reasonable belief, founded on definite material, that the goods were smuggled. Mere suspicion, unaccounted possession, or a general assertion of foreign origin was insufficient. In the absence of a reliable chain of events showing importation from abroad, the burden on the noticees was not validly shifted.

Conclusion: The Revenue failed to establish the foundational reasonable belief necessary to invoke the presumption under Section 123, and the seizure could not be treated as proved smuggling.

Issue (ii): Whether the statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the call data records, without compliance with Section 138B of the Customs Act, 1962 and without independent corroboration, were sufficient to sustain confiscation and penalties.

Analysis: The statement relied upon by the Revenue was treated as hearsay to the extent it was based on what others allegedly told the deponent, and the call records only showed contact between persons without disclosing the subject matter of conversation. The denial of cross-examination could not cure the defect where the adjudicating authority did not follow the procedure required for reliance on witness statements. In the absence of compliance with Section 138B and in the absence of independent corroborative evidence, the statements and call records were insufficient to sustain the charge.

Conclusion: The statements and call data records were not legally sufficient to uphold confiscation or penalties.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was upheld and the Revenue's appeals were rejected, leaving the confiscation and penalties set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: In a town seizure case, the presumption of smuggling can be drawn only on a foundational reasonable belief supported by definite material, and statements under Section 108 cannot sustain confiscation or penalty without mandatory procedural compliance and independent corroboration.

Issues: (i) Whether the show cause notice issued by the Tuticorin Customs could be treated as an offence report for initiating proceedings against the Customs Broker under the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018. (ii) Whether the show cause notice issued by the Cochin Customs under Regulation 17(1) of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018 was barred by limitation. (iii) Whether the penalty imposed under Regulation 18 of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018 was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the show cause notice issued by the Tuticorin Customs could be treated as an offence report for initiating proceedings against the Customs Broker under the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018.

Analysis: Regulation 17(1) requires initiation of proceedings on the basis of an offence report. The notice issued by the Tuticorin Customs contained the details of the alleged violations and was forwarded for action under the licensing regulations. On that basis, the commencement of proceedings by the Cochin Customs was held to be permissible.

Conclusion: The show cause notice issued by the Tuticorin Customs could be treated as the offence report for initiating action.

Issue (ii): Whether the show cause notice issued by the Cochin Customs under Regulation 17(1) of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018 was barred by limitation.

Analysis: Regulation 17(1) mandates issue of notice within ninety days from receipt of the offence report. Even taking the Tuticorin notice as the offence report, the Cochin notice was issued beyond the prescribed period. The time limit under Regulation 17(1) was treated as mandatory and strictly enforceable.

Conclusion: The show cause notice was barred by limitation.

Issue (iii): Whether the penalty imposed under Regulation 18 of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018 was sustainable.

Analysis: The adjudication was found to have proceeded without strict adherence to the procedure under Regulation 17, including consideration of the representation to the inquiry report and the request for cross-examination. Non-compliance with the prescribed procedure vitiated the penalty order.

Conclusion: The penalty under Regulation 18 was not sustainable.

Final Conclusion: The proceedings under the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018 were invalidated for breach of the mandatory time limit and procedural requirements, and the appellant's licence-related penalty was set aside with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Proceedings under Regulation 17 of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018 must be initiated within the prescribed ninety-day period from receipt of the offence report, and failure to follow the mandatory procedure vitiates the resultant penalty.

Issues: Whether the appellant Customs Broker violated Regulation 10(d), Regulation 10(e) and Regulation 10(n) of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018 so as to justify the penalty imposed.

Analysis: The record, including the statement of the branch-in-charge recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, indicated that the appellant had no knowledge that sugar was concealed in the consignments described as raw rice and would not have filed the shipping bill had that fact been known. The materials also showed that the appellant had obtained KYC particulars before processing the export documents, and the incorrect affidavit undertaking was explained as a clerical or typographical error. On these facts, there was no admissible evidence to establish that the appellant knowingly failed to advise the client, lacked due diligence in verifying the information furnished for clearance, or was aware of the attempted misdeclaration.

Conclusion: The alleged violations of Regulation 10(d), Regulation 10(e) and Regulation 10(n) of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018 were not proved, and the penalty could not be sustained.

Final Conclusion: The penalty order was set aside and the appellant was granted the resulting relief in law.