TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 1288
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... whereby, the Commissioner has imposed a penalty of Rs.50,000/- on the Customs Broker, by virtue of Regulation 20 (7) read with Regulation (18) of Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013 (CBLR). 2. The Appellant-Customs Broker is aggrieved by the above imposition of penalty. The Revenue is in Appeal on the ground that the imposition of penalty of Rs.50,000/- is not commensurate with the gravity of offence and therefore, they want the case to be remanded back to the file of Adjudicating Authority for revocation of Customs Broker License as well. 3. Heard Shri S. Murugappan, Ld. Advocate for the Appellant-CB and Ms. Anandalakshmi Ganeshram, Ld. Assistant Commissioner for the Revenue; we have carefully perused the documents placed on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... revocation of license and forfeiture of entire Security Deposit; however, reducing the penalty to Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as a deterrent. The appeal is disposed of on the above terms." Therefore, the Revenue's Appeal, wherein the Revenue is aggrieved on the ground that penalty imposed was not commensurate with the gravity of offence, and hence matter should be remanded for revocation of license would not survive and hence, the same stands dismissed. 5. The Show Cause Notice dated 10.01.2014 issued by the Commissioner under Regulation 20 (1) of the CBLR 2013 inter alia reveals that a Bill of Entry filed at ACC, Bangalore revealed the description of the goods stating, 'mineral substances', 'for mfg purpose', not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... advise his client to comply with the provisions of the Act and in case of no-compliance, he shall bring the matter to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner/Assistant Commissioner of Customs concerned. The responsibility therefore in terms of Regulation 13 (d) supra is huge on a Customs Broker, who should not only advise his client, but also to bring the matter to the notice of concerned Authority in case of non-compliance. 8. In the case on hand, admittedly, there is a misstatement insofar as the description of the goods imported is concerned, the Revenue has in fact brought out in the SCN itself the description as declared before the Customs authorities at the exporting point and the declaration given before the Customs authority at th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 13 (d) ibid is not established. Further, he has also contended that address of the importer is not fictitious, is also having a valid IEC and there is no mismatch as regards address is concerned and hence, there is no violation of Regulation 13 (o) ibid. Further, the Appellant is having around 22 branches all over India, having 1800 employees and a solitary instance of wrong classification, that too in the present case cannot be the basis for alleging lack of supervision over the employees and therefore Revenue has not established the violation of Regulation 19 (8) ibid. But in our discussions above, we have found a clear violation of Regulation 13 (d) and even in the arguments, no counter argument with supporting evidence is placed, nor i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ulation 13 (d) casts the responsibility on the concerned Customs Broker not only to advise his client, but also to intimate the same to concerned Customs Authority if there is non-compliance of Regulation, which is not done. This is a serious lapse since the duty assessments are different when the same are required to be assessed on R.S.P basis and, in any case, it is suffice to conclude that there is violation of Regulation 13 (d) ibid. 11. Further, we do not find any violation to Regulation 13 (o) ibid Since Revenue has also not pointed out any history of misstatement from the importer in question or misquoting of IEC and the address therein. 12. Insofar as violation of Regulation 19 (8) is concerned, when the Manager of the Customs....