TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (10) TMI 831
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Order No. 75193. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration : (i) Whether the Learned Tribunal is required to consider the true spirit and meaning of regulation 10(n) of Regulation, 2018, read with Circular no. 09/10-CUS dated 8.04.2010 before setting aside the Order-in-original dated 08.08.2022 ? (ii) Whether the Learned Tribunal is required under law to provide independent reason for setting aside the Order in Original ? (iii) Whether the documents submitted by the respondent can be considered as full compliance of the provisions of regulation 10(n) read with Circular no. 09/10-CUS dated 8.04.2010 ? (iv) Whether the Learned Tribunal has exceeded the jurisdiction by denying the report of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ondent to appear for a personal hearing, pursuant to which the PPC passed Order in Original dated 8th August, 2022 revoking the Customs Broker license granted to the respondent and forfeiting the entire security deposit and also imposing a penalty of Rs.50,000/-. Challenging the said order, the respondent preferred appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Tribunal by the impugned order has allowed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the revenue has preferred the present appeal suggesting the aforementioned substantial questions of law. The issue which falls for consideration before the Tribunal was with regard to the rule of the Customs broker qua Regulation 10(n) of the 2018 Regulations. The said Regulation reads as follows :- "The Custom....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he same, and upon being satisfied that the respondent has done due verification in terms of the obligation couched upon them under Regulation 10(n) processed the documents for 11 of the clients. As can be seen from the Regulation placed before this Court, there is no dispute to the fact that the exports had taken place and refunds have been sanctioned and paid to the exporters. The case of the Department is that exporters are not traceable. Admittedly, no action has been initiated under the provisions of the Customs Act against the exporter nor any show cause notice was issued under Section 124 of the Customs Act against the exporters or the respondent customs broker. After having found that the exporters are not traceable, there appears t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ich were produced by the respondent/customs broker were false and fabricated documents and there is nothing on record to even remotely suggest such an allegation. The Tribunal has, in our view, has rightly held that the obligation of the customs broker under regulation 10(n) does not include keeping a continued surveillance on the client to ensure that he continues to operate from that address and has not changed its operations. After noting the decision in Anax Air Services Pvt. Limited, the learned Tribunal has also considered the facts of the case and noted that the original office report was based on DGARM as in the case of Anax Air Services, and the Tribunal on facts found that the respondent customs broker has verified all the documen....