2020 (2) TMI 1263

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... applicant / appellant who is a Customs Broker alleging violation of Regulation 11(a) and (n) of CBLR, 2013. The proceedings culminated in passing Order-in-Original dated 12.10.2017, whereby penalty of Rs. 50,000/- was imposed. The appellant then opted to pay the penalty and not to take up the matter in appeal. However, later the appellant wanted to extend his business to other ports. He apprehended that he would not receive a no objection certificate due to the penalty imposed. On obtaining legal advice, the appellant has thereafter preferred the present appeal. It is argued by the learned counsel that no penalty can be imposed when the inquiry report is in favour of the Customs Broker. That the issue as to whether penalty can be imposed w....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sufficient cause is established by the appellant. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy (supra) cannot be relied upon in the present case since the facts in the said appeal are different. The delay occurred as counsel failed to appear and to inform the party. In the present case, appellant has opted not to file the appeal and paid the penalty. He cannot then contend that there is delay to file appeal. 5. It is also argued by her that it cannot be said that the livelihood of the appellant is affected by the imposition of penalty. The appellant has not adduced any evidence to show that any request for extending business to other ports were made or has been rejected. Even if such r....