2026 (7) TMI 1682

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ioner is the Proprietor of M/s. G. Seenivasan, a Customs Broker concern. It is the case of the petitioner that one Mr. Murugaram, a 'G' Card holder employed under the petitioner, had filed Shipping Bill No.9941807 dated 20.07.2012 on behalf of M/s. A.M. Exports for export of 80 boxes of pomegranates by using the Customs Broker licence of the petitioner without his knowledge or consent. 3. During examination of the export cargo by the Air Cargo Intelligence Unit, narcotic substances were allegedly found concealed inside the export cartons. According to the petitioner, he was unaware of the subject export transaction and the same was undertaken by the employee by misusing the Customs Broker licence. It is his contention that the same was r....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... as well as the proceedings under the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations. The CESTAT, vide Final Order dated 02.04.2024, after examining the materials, recorded a categorical finding that there was no evidence to establish that the petitioner had knowledge of the attempted illegal export and consequently set aside the penalty imposed under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act. 6. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner had not preferred an appeal against the order of revocation mainly because the licence itself had expired on 30.08.2015 and the petitioner was under the bona fide belief that the appeal pending against the suspension order would adequately protect his rights. He further contended that when the Tribunal has exo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....7.04.2013 clearly disclosed the allegations against the petitioner and the petitioner had been afforded sufficient opportunity. The respondent would therefore contend that the impugned order dated 22.07.2016 was passed in accordance with law. He further submitted that the petitioner had not challenged the order of revocation before the appellate forum and the same had attained finality. 10. Heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel on both sides and perused the materials available on record. 11. Admittedly, the proceedings under the Customs Act and the proceedings under the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations emanate from the very same transaction relating to Shipping Bill No.9941807 dated 20.07.2012. The allegation in both....