2023 (8) TMI 1329

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....imposed a penalty of penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on M/s. SNM Agency Kolkata holding Customs Broker Licence No. S-65, under regulation 18 of Customs Broker Licensing Regulation 2013 The Regulations (CBLR), read with regulation 20 ibid and ordered restoration of the CB Licence. 2. It is observed from the case papers, that the matter was last listed in 2017, when the registry was directed to list the matter before the Divisional Bench. Today, when the case was called none appeared for the appellants however a communication dated 10.08.2023 has been received by the registry in the aforesaid appeal. Farid Jamal, Proprietor of M/s. SNM Agency vide the said communication has informed that they filed the instant appeal on 27.06.2014 for setting asid....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... (a) ............................. (b).............................. (c) Committing any misconduct, whether within his jurisdiction or anywhere else which in the opinion of the Commissioner renders him unfit to transact any business in the Customs Station; (d).............................. (e).............................. (f) has been convicted by a competent court for an offence involving moral turpitude: 3.1. The precise reason for imposition penalty under regulation 18(c) is that the Customs Broker did not appear before the Deputy Director DRI, Ahmedabad against the two summons issued to him. The Customs Broker however sent his written representation in response, but as noted in para....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the first summons) requesting exoneration from attendance on 06.03.2012 and seeking a fresh date of appearance. This letter is on record as having been received in the office of the DRI on 09.03.2012. As for the second summons for appearance on 11.05.2012, apart from the varying contentions of the DRI and the appellant about its receipt, it is on record that the appellant requested exoneration and sought a fresh date of appearance with 15 days prior intimation. Accordingly, the appellant has contended that they cooperated with the DRI and had also appeared before the DRI on 11.09.2012 and 12.09.2012, besides submitting all documents as requested by the DRI. They had further pleaded that if their attendance at early point in time, was so imp....