TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 977
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was found that the goods were cleared for home consumption by grossly under-invoicing the goods and misutilization of Duty-Free Import Authorization (DFIA) scheme which has resulted in issue of Show Cause Notices against the importers. The respondent being the Customs Broker for the importers, a Show Cause Notice dated 31.12.2014 was issued to them for revocation of the license granted; forfeiture of security deposit and for imposition of penalty. After due process of law, the Ld. Commissioner of Customs imposed a penalty of Rs.50,000/- on the respondent. Aggrieved by the alleged leniency shown in the order, Revenue has filed the present appeal praying for the remand of the matter to the Commissioner for revocation of the Customs Broker License. The respondent has filed cross-objection against the appeal filed by the Revenue. 3. The Ld. Authorized Representative Smt. Anandalakshmi Ganeshram appeared for the appellant-revenue and Ld. Advocate Shri L. Gokulraj appeared for the respondent. 3.1 Smt. Anandalakshmi Ganeshram the Ld. AR for the appellant submitted as follows:- A. Although the Adjudicating Authority has held that the Customs Broker violated the statutory pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has serious ramifications on national trade interests. The Adjudicating Authority failed to apply due mind, disregarded the gravity of the offences, and did not accord due weight to the statutory Inquiry Officer's findings. It is therefore contended that the penalty imposed is grossly disproportionate to the seriousness of the offences. Permitting the Customs Broker to continue operations would jeopardize Government revenue. G. She relied on the following judgments: (i) Commissioner of Customs (Airport & Admn) Vs M/s Shipping & Clearing Agents Pvt. Ltd. [2024 (390) ELT 19 (Cal.)], where in it has been held that time lines prescribed under CBLR 2013 are only directory. (ii) Commissioner of Customs, Chennai Vs. Freight Field (Madras) Pvt. Ltd. [2020 (373) ELT 78 (Mad.)] wherein it has been held that no party in an adjudicating proceedings can be rendered remediless by way of appeal and if any such contrary view is taken by Courts of law, that will be detrimental to the basic structure as enshrined in our Constitution i.e. Judicial review. (iii) Commissioner of Customs (Airport & Administration) Vs. Marigo Logistics Pvt. Ltd. [(2023) 2 CENTAX 129 (C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....his ground alone. III. The Learned Commissioner, having duly considered the inordinate delays and statutory violations, has exercised discretion judiciously and taken a lenient view. In the absence of perversity or patent illegality, the impugned order does not warrant interference. Reliance is placed on Raj Brothers Shipping Pvt. Ltd. (Final Order Nos. 40627 & 40628 of 2025 dated 19.06.2025) and Aristo Shipping Services [2021 (377) ELT 562 (Mad.)]. IV. It is further submitted that proceedings under CBLR, 2013 are disciplinary in nature and Regulation 21 provides a right of appeal only to the Customs Broker and not to the Department. Accordingly, the present appeal itself is not maintainable, as held in Transport Cargo & Travels [2023 (10) Centax 122 (Del.)]. V. As regards the allegations of collusion and misuse of DFIA scheme, the proposals against the Respondent under the Customs Act, 1962 have been dropped in entirety, including allegations of misuse of DFIA licence and undervaluation. While proceedings under the Customs Act and CBLR are independent, the dropping of substantive allegations demonstrates the interpretative nature of the dispute. The good....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
......The jurisdiction of the Tribunal to interfere with the disciplinary matters or punishment cannot be equated with an appellate jurisdiction. The Tribunal cannot interfere with the findings of the Inquiry Officer or competent authority where they are not arbitrary or utterly perverse." (emphasis added) 9. Again the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment in State Bank of India Vs Samarendra Kishore Endow [1994 (1) SLR 516], has reiterated its earlier rulings that a High Court or Tribunal has no power to substitute its own discretion for that of the original authority. The Supreme Court in that case further observed as under: "On the question of punishment, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the punishment awarded is excessive and that lesser punishment would meet the ends of justice. It may be noticed that the imposition of appropriate punishment is within the discretion and judgement of the disciplinary authority. It may be open to the appellate authority to interfere with it but not to the High Court or to the Administrative Tribunal for the reason that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is similar to the powers of the High Court under Article 226. The p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed by the employer or a wrongful one done by an unauthorised mode of doing some act authorised by the master. Secondly whether the action of the employee was outside the scope of his employment. [See: Sitaram Motilal Kalal Vs Santanuprasad Jaishankar Bhatt - AIR 1966 SUPREME COURT 1697, 1966 3 SCR 527/N. Sridhar Vs Maruthi Jayaraman - Madras High Court, APPEAL SUIT NO.10 OF 2002, Dated: 16.06.2009]. It's only in the first scenario that the employer can be held liable. The acts of the employee done in excess of his authority or by defying express instructions or having been done recklessly, which clearly depart from the scope of his employment will not make his employer liable for his wrongful acts. Such a situation may be when the employee is engaged only in furthering his own interest's, pleasure or comfort etc. or to financially benefit himself as distinct from those of his employer. [See: State Bank of India Vs Shyama Devi - AIR 1978 SC 1263]. However, the situation is different even in a case when the action of the employee is beyond the scope of his employment i.e. when a fraud is committed by the employee for the benefit of the employer. Since the act and intent of the employ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the party who denies it; for a negative is usually incapable of proof. Simply put, it is easier to prove an affirmative than a negative. In other words, the burden of proving a fact always lies upon the person who asserts the same. Until such burden is discharged, the other party is not required to be called upon to prove his case. The court has to examine as to whether the person upon whom burden lies has been able to discharge his burden. Further, things which are admitted need not be proved. Whether the burden of proof has been discharged by a party to the lis or not would depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case. The party on whom the burden lies has to stand on his own and he cannot take advantage of the weakness or omissions of the opposite party. Thus, the burden of proving a claim or defence is on the party who asserts it. 42. Section 102 of the Evidence Act, 1872 provides a test regarding on whom the burden of proof would lie, namely, that the burden lies on the person who would fail if no evidence were given on either side. Whenever the law places a burden of proof upon a party, a presumption operates against it. Hence, burden of proof and presumptions....