2022 (12) TMI 986

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 10.05.2022. 2. I have heard Shri S. Murugappan, Learned Advocate, appearing for the appellant and Smt. Anandalakshmi Ganeshram, Learned Superintendent, appearing for the Revenue. 3. The only issue to be decided by me is: whether the Revenue was justified in imposing penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 on the Customs Broker for an alleged violation of Regulations 11(n) and 11(d) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013? 4. I have considered the rival contentions, have perused the written submissions and have also gone through the judgements referred to during the course of arguments. 5. The Show Cause Notice dated 03.08.2019 was issued on four co-noticees, including the appellant before this forum, and t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....referred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority, who vide impugned Order-in-Appeal Seaport C.Cus. II No. 250/2022 dated 10.05.2022 accepted the violation to Regulation 10(n) of the CBLR and having rejected the appeal, the present appeal has been filed before this forum. 6.1 The very foundation of this case appears to be very shaky since there is an allegation as to the violation of Regulations 11(n) and 11(d) of the CBLR against which the proposal issued was to penalize the appellant / Customs Broker under the provisions of the Customs Act. It is not as though the consequences of violation of the CBLR are not provided under the CBLR, 2013. Further, Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 prescribes imposition of penalty on any perso....