2024 (8) TMI 272

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the CESTAT has on an ultimate analysis of the facts and material existing on the record, affirmed the view taken by the Commissioner of Customs ['Commissioner'] who finally absolved the appellant from the spectre of revocation of license and confined the penal action to the imposition of a penalty of INR 50,000/-. 2. Before us it was principally argued that although the license of the appellant had been initially suspended, the suspension subsequently came to be revoked by an order of 09 March 2017. It was the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that in the absence of any new or fresh material having been gathered in the course of the inquiry which was undertaken under the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013 [and now s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of appeal is that after the earlier order dated 9.03.2017, whereby the suspension of his license was revoked, there is no fresh material on record and no substantial evidence against him to establish the contravention of the provisions of the Regulations. In the absence of further material, it is not proper to reverse the findings of the Commissioner. From the paragraph quoted above from the order of the Commissioner on the earlier occasion, we find that he has specifically observed that the appellant has prima-facie contravened the provisions of Regulation 11 (n) of CBLR 2013, (equivalent to Regulation 10 (n) of CBLR 2018) as his employee Shashikant Maruti Pol had accepted in his voluntary statement that the bill of entry dated 7.12.2016 h....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Shri Mehul Shah was using the IEC for import of goods and is doing business in the name of his IEC and he does not have any knowledge about import and export of goods. In other words, he is a dummy IEC holder and Shri Mehul Shah is the actual importer." 4. On an ultimate analysis of the aforesaid, the CESTAT found that Regulations 10 (d) and 10 (e) had been breached. It was in the aforesaid backdrop that CESTAT ultimately came to the following conclusion:- "13. We are therefore of the considered opinion that the appellant has failed to comply with the obligations under the Regulations as discussed above. This now brings us to the penalty to be imposed on the appellant. The regulations provide for various penalties which can be....