2026 (6) TMI 906

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s of law: "(i) Whether the CESTAT erred in law by setting aside the revocation of the Customs Broker's license and forfeiture of security deposit under Regulation 14 of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2018, despite acknowledging partial noncompliance with RMS-mandated 100% examination requirements, in light of the binding precedent in Commissioner of Customs v. Aafloat Textiles (2009) 237 ELT 587 (SC), which holds that procedural lapses in mandatory inspection protocols constitute a violation warranting regulatory action, regardless of intent? (ii) Whether the CESTAT misinterpreted Regulations 10(d) and 10(e) of the CBLR, 2018, by holding that the Customs Broker was not liable for non- compliance with ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....06.2024, which substantiated non-compliance with Regulations 10(d) and 10(e) of CBLR, 2018, through evidence such as CCTV footage, CFS invoice discrepancies, and employee admissions? (v) Whether the CESTAT's decision to uphold the penalty of 50,000 under Regulation 18 of CBLR, 2018, Rs. while setting aside the revocation of the license and forfeiture of security deposit under Regulation 14, is inconsistent and contrary to the principle of proportionality, given the gravity of the proven violations involving non-compliance with RMS-mandated 100% examination, failure to deploy an authorized "G" cardholder, and non-reporting of material misdeclaration of restricted goods? (vi) Whether the Hon'ble CESTAT erred in holdi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of the impugned Order, the CESTAT held that they found no evidence to charge the customs broker with not advising the client on the requirement to comply with the statutes; nor of participation in compelling customs official not to carry out the examination of the products imported by the importer. 7. After taking all these facts into consideration, and especially considering the fact that the goods imported were of such a nature that their classification could not be determined merely by looking at the goods, the CESTAT gave its finding on Regulation 10(d) in paragraph 11 referred to by us earlier. To put it in a nutshell, the CESTAT held that there was no evidence to hold that Regulation 10(d) of the CBLR, 2018, had been breached exce....