TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1518
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the order dated 18th October 2024 passed by the respondent no.2. Records would reveal that the aforesaid order was preceded by a show cause notice issued under section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"). The petitioner no. 1 claims that it was authorised by one M/s. Arya Spices And Food Trading Company (hereinafter referred to as "the importer) for importation and clearance of the goods declared as "Black Pepper 550 G/L Cleaned (Super refined) Spices (Piper Nigrum)" (hereinafter referred as "Black Pepper"). According to the petitioner no. 1, it had filed two Warehouses (Into Bond) Bills of Entry Nos. 8251332 dated 29th September 2018 and 8293759 dated 3rd October 2018 which were allotted WR No. 551 da....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....porter/mastermind. 4. Independent of the aforesaid, on the basis of a proceeding initiated for alleged violation of Regulations 10(m) and 10(n) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulation, 2018, (in short CBLR, 2018), an order in original was passed on 11th July 2024, inter alia, revoking the customs brokers licence of the petitioner no. 1. The petitioner no. 1 had challenged the same by filing appeals before the CESTAT, Eastern Zonal Bench - Kolkata which was registered as customs appeal as 75379 of 2024 and 75952 of 2025. By an order dated 7th November 2024 the above appeals were allowed, inter alia, holding that the petitioner no. 1 was no longer the authorised representative for clearance of the goods after 5th November 2018 and could ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... available with the customs authority, the involvement of the petitioner no. 1 had been noted and communicated to the petitioner no. 1. A regular enquiry had been conducted which ultimately culminated in the order impugned. This is not a case of any jurisdictional error, if the adjudicating authority has committed an error of fact, the same cannot be corrected by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction. As such, no interference is called for. 8. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record. Prima facie, it would transpire that the petitioner no. 1 was appointed as a custom broker by the importer. The petitioner no. 1 was also involved in clearance of goods dec....