TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (5) TMI 305
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the case are that the appellants are holders of Customs Broker License Number 11/303 issued under regulation 9(1) of Custom House Agents Regulations, 2004. The Customs Broker License was issued to the appellant by Mumbai Customs and was valid up to 31.12.2017. At Unaccompanied Baggage Centre, Air Cargo Complex, Sahar, Mumbai, one unaccompanied baggage was received from Sharja. The baggage was booked in the name of Ms. Usha Mudaliar. For clearance of the said baggage, a Baggage Declaration Form (BDF) bearing number 200892 was filed on 17.02.2017. The said baggage declaration form was signed by Shri Pinakin A. Sodha. Shri Pinakin A. Sodha was holder of CARDEX No. S-621 and he was working for the appellant i.e. M/s N D Masrani. Along with ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appellant with Customs authorities and revoked Customs Broker License bearing No. 11/303 under regulation 18 of Custom Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013 (now regulations 14 of CBLR, 2018). Aggrieved by the said order the appellant is before this Tribunal. 3. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant. The learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the inquiry officer has based his conclusions solely on the statements recorded by the investigation agency. He further submitted that the adjudicating authority without considering the defence has simply accepted the inquiry report and passed the order and the same therefore, is not sustainable in law. In respect the charge that the appellant has failed to advice his client to compl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Masrani, who was partner of the CHA firm M/s N D Masrani, who is appellant in this case. Learned AR has further submitted that original authorities order is elaborated, reasoned and with application of mind. He has further submitted that as per the daily order sheet during inquiry dated 09.04.2019 it was stated before inquiry officer by Shri Kantilal Dayabhai Masrani partner of the appellant firm that at the time of incidence Shri Pinakin A. Sodha was employee of their firm. He has submitted that the appellant is responsible for the use of Customs Broker License by its employees and presence of printed baggage declaration list of items containing unaccompanied baggage having the logo and the name of the appellant indicates involvement of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ployees that was annexed to the licence application form but ultimately admitted that he was provided with a Gcategory card issued by the appellant firm, he was looking after the day today work of the CB firm, as an active partner of the said firm. Mr. Kantilal D. Masrani aged about 86 years then was not keeping good health. Strangely in citing judgment of this Tribunal passed in the case of Smita International vs. Commissioner of Customs (G), Mumbai 2008 (225) ELT 439 (Tri-Mumbai). Appellant seeks indulgence of this Tribunal in not accepting the finding of the Commissioner that was passed on the statement recorded under 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 but relied upon in proceedings under CBLR, 2013, which according to the relied upon judgment....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of enquiry and would not defeat its purpose. This being the factual and legal scenario, and while accepting the involved person named Mr. Pinakin A. Sodha to be an employee of the appellant firm, despite the fact that payment of fixed remuneration to him was denied, we are of the considered opinion that custom broker is to be held responsible for acts and omissions of his employees during their employment in view of the operation of section 17(9) of the CBLR, 2013 for which we also confirm the order of revocation of CB licence of the appellant along with imposition of penalty of Rs. 50,000/- and forfeiture of its security deposit amount made under Regulation 18 of CBRL, 2013. Section 17(9) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013....