TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (2) TMI 1138
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../- on the appellant under the provisions of Regulation 18 read with Regulation 20(7) and 22 of Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants filed Bill of Entry on behalf of M/s.Sona Enterprises for clearance of SS vacuum bottles, flasks of different types and sizes. These imported goods are entered to be assessed based on the MRP affixed on them. The Officers conducted certain enquiry with reference to said import consignments and found that the MRP declared were not correct and there was short payment of customs duty due to this. After completion of enquiry, proceedings were initiated against importer as well as appellants under Customs Act, 1962. The present proceedings are in terms of CB....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onsignments imported by M/s.Sona Enterprises, since 2012 and did not advise the importer properly in this regard to this extent. As such, I hold that to that extent the CB has failed to comply with the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. However, this act of omission by CB cannot be considered to be so grave to warrant revocation of their CB license." 4. On the basis of above findings, he imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on the appellant. 5. The ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant contested the impugned order on two main grounds. 6. First he submitted that the time limit prescribed under CBLR have not been adhered to. The proceedings happened much beyond the period of 90 days from the date of offence report. Secondly, he held that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... same were affixed in the Customs examination area as per the labels supplied by the importer. The ld. AR submitted that the importation of goods without MRP details which is a mandatory requirement is not proper. Though, the importer can affix such MRP labels before the goods were cleared out of Customs the same should be done with the prior intimation and due supervision. The appellant is in-charge of such activities. His failure to follow the proper procedure and not brining to the notice of the Dy. Commissioner about the non-availability of statutory labels in the imported goods will constitute a violation of Regulation 11 (d). The ld. AR submitted that though the enquiry report recommended for revocation, forfeiture as well as penalty,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the DRI. As such, we find no breach of limitation of time limit. 11. On the second issue regarding the proceeding resulting in imposition of penalty being beyond the scope of show cause notice, we note that the show cause notice invoked violations under Regulation 11 (d). We have perused the enquiry report also. The enquiry report categorically brings out the violations on the part of the appellant. It is clearly recorded that the MRP labelling on the goods were done in the Customs area as admitted by the appellant and no permission has been obtained from the concerned authorities for the same. This is also recorded in the show cause notice regarding violation of 11 (d). The ld. Counsel strongly contested that the non-obtaining of permiss....