TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 728
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se, 15/1, Strand Road, Kolkata-700 001, wherein the Custom Broker License of M/s. Kushagra Shipping Agency(herein after referred as the appellant) has been revoked. Aggrieved against the revocation of the CB License and imposition of penalty, the appellant has filed this appeal. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is a Customs broker having Registration No. 12-20, Code No. 2346, which is valid till 20.12.2022. On 24th February 2022, a suspension order bearing No. 04/2022 dated 24th February 2022 was served to the appellant. Subsequently, a show cause notice was served to the appellant for revocation of their license. An Enquiry has been ordered and on completion of the Enquiry an Enquiry Report was submitted by the Enquiry Offi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ember 2021. On 18th September 2021, the importer informed the appellant that they have abandoned the goods and the appellant was asked not to proceed with the matter since the importer wanted the foreign supplier to take control of goods for the purpose of re-shipment. The appellant informed the Customs Department accordingly. 3.2. Since the appellant's appointment as CB has been revoked by the importer, they had no power to act as CB in this case. The foreign seller had already staked claim on the goods. Without instructions from client, the appellant could not do anything. Nonetheless, they made arrangement of inspection at their own cost on the directives of the Department. 3.3. The appellant submits that vide letter dated 18th Sep....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Regulation 10 (n) of Customs Broker Regulation 2018 is also not tenable. It has been alleged that the appellant did not verify the correctness of the importer exporter code number, etc. In this regard, the appellant submits that the importer was present throughout. They have appeared in all the proceedings. They have appeared before the adjudicating authority and they were very much available. The Tribunal and the Courts have held that it is not the obligation of a Custom Broker to visit and verify the office premises for the purpose of performance of their duties. 3.6. Regarding the charge of violation of Regulation 10 (o) of the Customs Broker Regulation 2018, the appellant submits that there was no change of their address. The appella....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ased and after such cessation the appellant could not be made liable for delay. In any event, on the request of the department the appellant did provide all the amenities for inspection at their own cost. The appellant submits that they have been penalized for violation of Regulation 10 (m) which is the alleged charge of not expeditiously providing inspection of goods, is incorrect. The finding by the adjudicating authority regarding violation of 10 (m) of CBLR 2018 is not substantiated with any evidence. Therefore, the adjudicating authority has erred by holding that the appellant had violated Regulation 10 (m) of CBLR 2018. 3.9. The appellant submits that the statement of a co-accused which is self-contrary and contradictory cannot be re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... foreign seller had already staked claim on the goods. We observe that without instructions from client, the appellant could not do anything. Nonetheless, the appellant made arrangement of inspection of the goods. 6.1. We observe that vide letter dated 18th September, the importer has relinquished the goods under Section 23 of the Customs Act. It is the prerogative of the importer whether to clear the goods or relinquish it. Once the importer has decided to relinquish the goods and asked the appellant not to proceed in the matter, the appellant had no further role in the matter. Thus, we observe that there is no truth in allegation made in the impugned order that the appellant did not advise the importer not to relinquish the goods. Accord....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....present throughout. They have appeared in all the proceedings. They have appeared before the adjudicating authority and they were very much available. Further, we observe that it is not the obligation of a Custom Broker to visit and verify the office premises of the importer for the purpose of performance of their duties. Accordingly, we hold that the allegation of violation of Regulation 10 (n) of Customs Broker Regulation 2018 in the impugned order is not sustained. 6.4. Regarding violation of the Regulation 10 (q) of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulation, we observe that the appellant had co-operated with the Custom Authorities. There is no evidence available on record that the appellant has not cooperated with the authorities. Once ....