TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 319
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppellant, being a customs broker had abetted with the exporter in export of 'sugar' in the guise of 'raw rice', proceedings were initiated and Customs Tuticorin had forwarded an offence report vide letter dated 29.11.2022. Based on the above offence report, a Show Cause Notice was issued on 27.02.2022 under CBLR, 2018. Thereafter, adjudication authority as per the impugned order held that the appellant had violated the provisions of Regulation 10(d), (e) and (n) of the CBLR, 2018 and imposed penalty. Aggrieved by said order, present appeal is filed. 3. When the appeal came up for hearing, Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that Appellant being a customs broker, processes the documents submitted by the exporter whil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... mentioned in Shipping Bill were 'Raw Rice' bags and from the documents submitted by the Exporter to them, it was only mentioned as 'Raw Rice' and hence they filed the Shipping Bill as 'Raw Rice'. That if they were informed that the gunny bags with sugar were mixed with 'Raw Rice' bags, they would not have filed the Shipping Bill. As regarding the omission alleged by the respondent, Learned Counsel submits that the appellant had filed an affidavit /undertaking letter on behalf of M/s. Pattinathar Trading, Chennai; but due to a clerical /cut and paste error, the name and designation was changed. Shri. N Jayachandran also stated that only after receiving proper KYC, appellant filed the Shipping Bill, that only ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t application of judicial mind. 6. As regards reliance on the statement made by N. Jayachandran on 26.09.2022, H-card holder of the appellant. The Adjudication Authority noted that he had made a statement that it was the first business of the appellant with the exporter M/s. Pattinathar Trading and known as regular exporter of Wheat flour. Due to that reason adjudicating authority held that exporter approached the appellant for filing shipping bill for export of Raw Rice which amounts to violation of the provisions of the Regulation 10(e) of the CBLR, 2018. In this regard, learned counsel submits that there is nothing on record to show that the appellant had knowledge that the goods mentioned in the shipping bills did not reflect the tru....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2 Centax 157 (Tri.-Cal.) iii. M/s M.K Sha & Co. Vs. CC (Airport & ACC), Kolkata 2 (reported in 2023 2 Centax 34 (Tri. Cal) iv. Commissioner of Customs Vs. BK Clearing Agency (2024) 14 Centax 65 (Cal.) v. Sinha Shipping Agency Vs. Commissioner of Customs (2024) 14 Centax 17 (Tri.-Cal) vi. M/s Mauli Worldwide Logistics Appeal No. C/50997/2021DB Final order No. 50561/2022 dated 04.07.2022. 7. Learned Authorized Representative (AR) reiterated the findings in the impugned order and submits that being a Customs Broker having knowledge of the Act, Rules, Regulations, Notifications under the Customs Act and allied acts, appellant should have complied with all the provisions of the Customs Broker Licensing Regu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted that, if they were having no knowledge regarding presence of sugar and if they were informed that gunny bags with sugar were mixed with raw rice bags, they would not have filed the shipping bill. They have also filed an affidavit on behalf of the exporter. Thus, appellant was not aware about the illegal export of sugar as rice. There is no reason to allege that the appellant had violated the provisions of 10(d) of CBLR 2018 by not advising his client to comply with the provisions of the act or other allied acts, rules, regulations. 10. As regards violation of the Regulation 10(e) and (n) of the CBLR 2008, though it is admitted fact that there was illegal export of goods, there is no allegation in the impugned order regarding knowledg....