TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (12) TMI 756
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of law are involved in this appeal ; (I) Whether the CESTAT is justified in law in partly allowing the Appeal by setting aside the order of revocation of the license of the Respondent and forfeiture of the security deposit. (II) Whether the CESTAT is correct & justified law in holding that there is no requirement under Regulation 10(a) of CBLR, 2018 for the customs broker to have personally met the proprietor or any authorized person, despite the fact that the said Regulation specifically requires the Customs Broker to obtain written authorization "from each of the companies, firms or individuals by whom he is for the time being employed"? 3. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that there is a contr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r, and this appeal gives rise to the above-mentioned substantial question of law. 5. Mr. Balani, learned counsel for the respondent, submits that the appeal only involves issues of fact. He submits that the CESTAT has evaluated the factual material on record following the CESTAT's decision in the case of 'Commissioner of Customs (Airport and General) New Delhi Vs. M/s Bright Clearing & Carrier Pvt. Limited' Customs Appeal No.51658 of 2021 dated 18 November 2022. He submitted that M/s Bright Clearing (Supra) interprets the nature of obligations cast upon the customs broker. He submitted that the Principal Commissioner's approach was contrary to the law in M/s Bright Clearing (Supra). Upon applying the correct principles in M/s Bright Clea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... at the door of the customs broker. Just as the officers' responsibility ends doing this part of the job (which may be of issuing the registration without physical verification or allowing the exports without assessing the documents or examining the goods) the customs broker's responsibility ends with fulfilling this responsibility under Regulation 10 of the CBLR, 2018. The dispute in these appeals relates to CBLR (10) (n), which, the Tribunal has discussed, did not require any physical verification of the address of the exporter/importer. 9. The CESTAT, in this case, has examined the material documents on record and evaluated them. Going by the principles laid down in M/s Bright Clearing (Supra), the circumstance that M/s Swastik Enterp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....verification of documents in respect of first time of import of goods' is mutatis mutandis we applicable to 'first time export goods' also. We also find that in compliance with these instructions, the appellants Customs Broker had filed necessary documents in respect two exporters viz., M/s Swastik Enterprises and Ganesh Export, and the letter/approval has been given by the Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Precious Cargo Customs Clearance Centre, located at 'G' Tower, Bharat Diamond Bourse, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai providing 'First time Export/Import approval in view of Public Notice No.08/2013 dated 17.09.2013'. In respect of M/s Swastik Enterprises the approval was given by letter dated 21.08.2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or the first time import/export through Precious Cargo Customs Clearance Centre having Customs-EDI port code INDPC4. Thus, we find that the conclusion arrived at by the Principal Commissioner in the impugned order to the extent that the appellants have violated in not fulfilling the obligation cast on them under Sub-regulation 10(n) is not legally sustainable. 11. The above findings of fact cannot be set to be vitiated by any perversity. It is not as if the above findings are based on no material on record. This appeal is restricted to substantial questions of law. In the absence of any perversity in the record of findings of fact, it is not open to this Court to re-appreciate the material on record as if it were exercising first appella....