2023 (9) TMI 771

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ce and forfeiting security deposit under regulation 14 of Customs Broker Licencing Regulations, 2018 while imposing penalty of Rs..  50,000 under regulation 18 of Customs Broker Licencing Regulations, 2018 on the finding that acts of omission and commission on their part, in handling bill of entry no. 5126157/08.02.2018 for imports effected by M/s Twister Enterprises, had been in breach of obligations devolving on them by regulation 10 of Customs Broker Licencing Regulations, 2018. 2. The imports were found to have been misdeclared and it was revealed during investigations that documentation for entitling import by M/s Twister Enterprises had been secured in the name of one Atul Dilip Baviskar who claimed to be a helper in a construct....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....at every notice of hearing had been responded to; we, however, note that the appellant, in response to licencing authority, had not preferred such submission as fatal to the proceedings. Accordingly, it would appear that the appellant is, at least partially, not without responsibility too for delay in conclusion of inquiry proceedings. 4. Learned Counsel also submitted that the findings in the inquiry report are incorrect insofar as each of the alleged violations are concerned. According to him, the presence of witnesses was essential to establishing that the charges were unfounded considering that the obligations, alleged to have been breached, are too broadly expressed for fitment with actual operation as customs broker. He also submitte....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....correct information, with reference to cargo clearance, to the 'client' during the course of handling the impugned goods. 8. The expression 'client' has been deployed rather loosely in Customs Broker Licencing Regulations, 2018. We do not see any reason to conclude that 'client' has to be the owner or consignee of the goods as such person may also well be nominee of the importer including employees. In any case, the rendering of advice to a 'client' or correctness of information pertaining to clearance for a 'client' is a matter of hearsay and the investigators have had the advantage of obtaining the purported version of the 'client' which, in absence of challenge, may lack validation. The notice issued to the appellant relied on statement....