TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 419
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ity deposit and for imposition of penalty has been assailed in this appeal. 2. This appeal was earlier decided by the Tribunal by an order dated 04.11.2024. The department filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court which has set aside the order passed by the Tribunal and has directed that the matter may be decided before 15.12.2025. 3. Shri Salil Arora, learned counsel for the appellant made two submissions. The first is that the show cause notice is vague as it merely reproduces the order dated 30.12.2023 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs in proceedings initiated against the importer and the present appellant under the provisions of Customs Act, 1962 without specifying why action should be taken for violation of provi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... baggage; ....... (q): co-operate with the Customs authorities and shall join investigations promptly in the event of an inquiry against them or their employees. 13. Engagement or employment of persons.-................ (12) The Customs Broker shall exercise such supervision as may be necessary to ensure proper conduct of his employees in the transaction of business and he shall be held responsible for all acts or omissions of his employees during their employment." 6. The Inquiry Officer has very meticulously examined the violation of these regulations in the enquiry report. 7. In respect of the allegations of violation of 10 (d), the finding recorded is as follows: "(i) As regards the first issue,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the allegation of violation of regulation 10(e), the Inquiry Officer has recorded the following findings: "(i) I observe that there were no discrepancies found in the Export shipments handled by the said Custom Broker regarding the three export Shipments for this client (M/s. Aura Multitrade). (ii) Since the said SCN fall short to prove the Customs Broker have not fulfilled the obligations cast upon them under the provisions of CBLR, 2018 and contravened/violated the provisions of Regulation 10(e) of the CBLR, 2018, I observe that due to the reasons mentioned in para 48.1.supra, I am of the view that the Show Cause Notice does not prove beyond doubt the violation of Regulation 10(e) of the CBLR, 2018." 9. In respect to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly Shri Rajesh Chodnekar was Custom Department approved G-Card Holder and due diligence before approving him had been done by the Customs Department. (ii) Further, the Noticee Custom Broker had executed a power of attorney in favour of the G-Card Holder in the format prescribed by the Mumbai Commissionerate & an "Appointment Agreement" (enclosed herewith) was also executed in compliance of all the obligations under CBLR, 2018. (iii) Since the facts and circumstances on record are contrary to the charges cast under the said SCN against the said Custom Broker, therefore I am of the view that the allegation of violation of Regulation 13(12) of the CBLR, 2018 cannot be proven beyond doubt." 11. After having recorded the afo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....quiry report if it is in favour of the customs broker, but if he disagrees with the same, then in such a situation the Commissioner should apprise reasons for disagreement so that a reply can be filed. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment are reproduced below: "14. The answer to question no.(i) is clearly that the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be, is not bound to accept the inquiry report, if it is in favour of the Custom Broker and he can disagree with the same. 15. Coming to question no. (ii). The opportunity of hearing, as contemplated by Regulation 20, envisages that the Customs Broker should be provided the material, which is to be used against him for passing an adverse order, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fference, would not enable the petitioner to rebut, qualify or explain the adverse material and show cause against the proposed adverse action. Principles of natural justice required that before an adverse decision was taken against the petitioner, the petitioner should have been communicated the adverse material/reasons for disagreement. The fact that the reasons for disagreement were not communicated to the petitioner prior to the adverse decision being taken by the Commissioner of Customs, there was clearly a violation of principles of natural justice. The Commissioner of Customs should have recorded the reasons for disagreement and forwarded the same to the petitioner for his comments before passing the impugned order. Because of failur....