2019 (10) TMI 1351

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....AT') in Appeal No. C/50755/2017-CU(DB) [2018 (359) E.L.T. 584 (Tribunal)], whereby the CESTAT has found the Appellant to have been in violation inter alia of Regulations 11(a) and 11(d) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 ('CB Regulations') and has ordered, in modification of the order of the Commissioner of Customs, forfeiture of the whole of the amount of the security deposit as well as a penalty of Rs. 50,000/-. 2. The brief facts are that the Appellant M/s. KVS Cargo held a CB License. Its sole proprietor is Mr. Sameer Jha and its two employees are one Mr. Girish Nathani, a G-card holder and Mr. Moti Khanna. It appears that the Appellant was issued a show cause notice ('SCN') dated 28th July, 2016 by the Directora....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....gh a mediator was sufficient. 5. When the matter travelled to the Commissioner of Customs, he gave a disagreement note and held that the statement of Mr. Sachin Gulati showed that it was one Mr. Aman Vachher who was the actual importer of the goods and that it was Mr. Vachher who had appointed the Appellant to act as CB for M/s. Unisys Enterprises. According to the Commissioner, although Mr. Gulati had deviated from his earlier statement during cross-examination, this was an "afterthought at this belated stage". According to the Commissioner, both partners were unaware about the import made by Mr. Aman Vachher himself. 6. In the appeal by the present Appellant before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Tribunal (CESTAT), the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....018, made the following observations in relation to the order of the CESTAT reducing the punishment to forfeiture of the security deposit and levy of penalty of Rs. 50,000 : "The adjudicating or appellate authorities were thus not afforded the option of picking up the one element from the revocation and forfeiture option and imposing penalty along with forfeiture. To that extent, the CESTAT clearly went beyond the Regulations. However, this Court is not persuaded to exercise jurisdiction to set aside the order entirely because the role ascribed to the CB holder was one of carelessness and negligence. In this regard the Court notices that both the authorities - the Commissioner as well as he CESTAT appeared to have imposed almost im....