TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 188
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r-in-Original No.49570/2016 dated 30.08.2016 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Chennai-VIII), Chennai under CBLR, 2013. Appeal No. C/42264/2016 has been filed by M/s. S. Murugan challenging forfeiture of security deposit without revocation of licence, while the departmental appeals 41158/2016 & 42425/2016 challenge revocation of suspension and non-revocation of licence despite findings of violations under CBLR, 2013. 2. Briefly stated, M/s. S. Murugan, Chennai, a licensed Customs Broker operating under Chennai and Delhi jurisdictions, came under investigation by DRI, Delhi in connection with alleged fraudulent drawback exports through dummy firms managed by Shri Vikas Sharma and Shri Sushail Sehgal. Proceedings were initiated under ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rned counsel further submitted that the adjudicating authority rightly exercised discretion under Regulation 20(7) of CBLR, 2013 by ordering forfeiture of security deposit instead of revocation of licence. Reliance was placed on Commissioner of Customs v. Trishiv Logistics Pvt. Ltd., 2019 (370) ELT 1055 (Tri.-Chennai), to contend that review authorities cannot seek harsher punishment merely on the basis of differing views regarding adequacy of penalty. The learned counsel therefore sought setting aside of forfeiture and dismissal of the departmental appeals. 5. The Ld. Authorized Representative Ms. Rajni Menon appearing for the Revenue, reiterated the findings contained in the inquiry report and review proceedings. It was submitted that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rd. The proceedings arise out of DRI investigation into alleged fraudulent drawback exports through firms linked to Shri Vikas Sharma and Shri Sushail Sehgal. The department alleged that the disputed export clearances were handled through the Customs Broker licence and that the Delhi operations were managed through intermediaries without proper supervision. Reliance was placed on statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act and other investigation records. 9. Upon consideration of the records, we find that the present proceedings under CBLR are concerned with whether the Customs Broker complied with the obligations of due diligence, supervision and verification required under the licensing regulations. Though the case arises ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e part of the Customs Broker in relation to the Delhi operations. 12. Though the learned counsel for the appellant contended that there is no conclusive evidence establishing conscious participation of the Customs Broker in the alleged fraudulent drawback activities, we are unable to accept the contention that the proceedings are based merely on assumptions. The evidence on record sufficiently establishes failure of due diligence, supervision and verification expected under Regulations 11(a), 11(b), 11(n) and 17(9) of CBLR, 2013. Even in the absence of conclusive evidence of deliberate collusion, permitting customs work to be carried out through inadequately supervised intermediaries and failure to properly verify exporters constitute se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ate cannot be sustained. 15. However, the reliance placed upon Trishiv Logistics Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) does not assist the appellant in seeking total exoneration. The evidence on record sufficiently establishes failure of supervision, permitting customs work to be conducted through inadequately supervised intermediaries and non-compliance with obligations under Regulations 11(a), 11(b), 11(n) and 17(9). The records clearly disclose abdication of supervisory responsibility by the licence holder in relation to the Delhi operations. In disciplinary proceedings under CBLR, such failures are sufficient to justify regulatory action even in the absence of conclusive evidence establishing deliberate fraud or criminal conspiracy. 16. Insofar as Or....