TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (1) TMI 1331
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t of the Appellant, and despite this, the CESTAT, though setting aside the revocation of the customs brokers license of the Appellant, upheld the order of forfeiture of the security deposit and imposition of penalty. 2. In the above Appeal, in our opinion, the following questions of law arise for our consideration: "a) Whether the order passed by the Hon'ble Tribunal upholding the imposition of penalty and forfeiture of security deposit without giving any reasons in support thereof can be said to be passed without any application of mind and unsustainable in the eyes of law? b) Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal has committed a glaring error in upholding the imposition of penalty and forfeiture of security deposit despite a finding ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... imposing a penalty of Rs.50,000/-. It is this order that was challenged before the CESTAT in Customs Appeal No.8041 of 2020. 5. Before the CESTAT it was argued by the Appellant that the Appellant was penalized for the exports made by the Exporter (Bansal Fine Foods Private Limited) alleging that (i) 48 consignments of rice had been exported to Iran and most of these consignments were off-loaded in Dubai instead of the destination mentioned in the documents; (ii) remittances for the same were received in Indian currency; and (iii) the goods ultimately reached the final destination of Iran. To put in a nutshell, it was the case of the Appellant before the Tribunal that there was no wrong doing on its part and the charges against them were n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ischarge. The only argument of the adjudicating authority that the appellant was aware of the actual port of discharge was based on the contradictory statement of the exporter and the Investigation conducted against the exporter. We are of the considered opinion that while the Investigation conducted may or may not lead to the confirmation of the offenses by the exporter (which is any way beyond the purview of the present appeal), it would not be a conclusive evidence to establish gross negligence or misconduct on the part of the appellants. No documents whatsoever have been produced by the Adjudicating Authority or the respondents to substantiate the allegation that the appellants were in the knowledge of actual port of discharge. Under th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l in paragraph 13, though setting aside the revocation of the Customs Brokers License of the Appellant, without giving any reasons, upholds the forfeiture of the security deposit and imposition of penalty. 9. We fail to understand how the forfeiture of security deposit and imposition of penalty could be upheld when the Tribunal itself comes to the conclusion that there is no evidence to establish that there is any gross negligence or misconduct on the part of the Appellant and neither has the adjudicating authority been able to prove that the Appellant was in the knowledge of the actual port of discharge, which was different from the final destination. 10. This apart, we find that in the Appeal filed by the exporter (Bansal Fine Foods Pri....