TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (1) TMI 1019
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. Sadabahar Foods, Pashchim Vihar, New Delhi but without complete and valid documentation. Pursuant to said intelligence, an inquiry was initiated against the exporter during which it came to light that the exporter was not possessing Export inspection Agency (EIA) Certificate as was mandatorily required by a milk product exporter in terms of Section 7 of Export (Quality Control & inspection) Act, 1963. There has been an admission of the exporter about not possessing the said certificate at the relevant time and export was made through the CHA, the present appellant. Since the CHA desposed his total ignorance about the certificate, however, acknowledged that the exporter did not possess the EIA Certificate that the violation of regulation ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....owever with respect to the shipping bill in question, the certificate was demanded. Ld. Counsel has mentioned that the unawareness of the exporter as well as of the appellant about the necessity of the said EIA certificate gave the confirmed bonafide belief to the exporter as well as to the appellant that the EIA Certificate is not a mandatory requirement. It was also because of the reason that even the custom officials did not require the said certificate while clearing 50 other shipping bills of the appellant. It is impressed upon that the said fact is sufficient to hold that there was no malafide intent at least with the appellant to not to comply with the relevant law. Imposition of penalty being a penal action is therefore, not warrant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has laid emphasis upon the order in appeal wherein it is appreciated that irrespective of all the submissions of the appellant there still remains the violation of CBLR on part of the appellant. Hence, there is no infirmity in the order of Commissioner (Appeals) when imposition of penalty upon custom broker i.e. the appellant has been confirmed. Appeal is therefore, prayed to be dismissed. 7. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the record, I observe and hold as follows:- The allegation against the appellant which initiated the present proceedings against him culminating into imposition of penalty of Rs. 50,000/- is that he is alleged to have violated Regulations 10(d), 10 (e) and 10 (n) of CBLR, 2018. The provision reads ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... As per Regulation 10 (d) appellant was duty bound to inform the exporter about the mandatory requirement of said Certificate. As per Regulation 10(e) he was supposed to be diligent in passing over such an important information to the exporter whose antecedent viz. IEC, GSTIN address, PAN etc should have been verified by the appellant for proper compliance of Regulation 10 (n) of CBLR 2018. 9. I observe that there is no denial either of the appellant or even of the exporter that the said EIA certificate was not annexed with the Shipping Bills. There is a clear admission that the Certificate was not issued to the exporter at the time of filing of the impugned shipping bill. This is otherwise apparent from the record that the said certific....