TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1047
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d based on the offence report dated 13.03.2023 and alleging that the Appellant failed to produce the authorization at the time of investigation, proceedings were initiated by issuing show cause notice on 11.04.2023 and the Inquiry officer (IO) was appointed vide show cause notice dated 11.04.2023 and has submitted the report on 04.07.2023. Though the Appellant had sought cross examination of the witnesses, the Chartered Engineer and the proper officer (Import) shed whose statements were relied in the show cause notice, the Inquiry officer (IO) did not grant cross examination. The Adjudication Authority imposed penalty. Aggrieved by said order, present appeal is filed. 3. When the appeal came up for hearing, the Learned Counsel for the Ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in their Letter Head, with seal and signature of the Proprietor. It is true that while giving statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, the Appellant deposed before the investigating officer that he had not obtained authorization from the importer. Learned Counsel for the Appellant further submits that such a deposition was given under confusion as the question was very direct as to whether any authorization was 'received' from the importer. As a matter of fact, all import documents, KYC of the importer as well as 'authorization' was handed over to the Appellant by Shri. Sanjeev, who introduced himself as 'representative' of the importer. As the Appellant had received 'authorization' through Shri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) claims that Shri. Sanjeev is not associated with his business, he has not disputed or given any reason for making his self-attested IEC (Doc No.8), Signature Verification Certificate, which M/s. IDFC First Bank Ltd., acknowledged and confirmed on 27-05-2022 (Doc No.9), Pan Card (Doc No.10), Aadhar Card (Doc No.11) and GST Registration Certificate (Doc No.12), made available with Shri. Sanjeev. It is nearly impossible for a third party to hold all these personal documents. Moreover, the ultimate beneficiary is the importer. It is pertinent to note that the veracity of these documents as well as Authorization dated 04-01-2022, issued to the Appellant herein was not disputed by the importer in any of the proceedings. Even though these docume....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, elaborating the role of Shri. Sanjeev were very much available with the department, even at the very inception of the case but none of them attempted to summon Shri. Sanjeev to enquire about his acquaintance with Shri. Gagandeep Khattar, the way in which he received import documents, personal documents of Shri.Gagandeep Khattar and Authorization to engage Customs Broker. The Inquiry proceedings was therefore an empty formality, pre-determined to frame the Appellant. 9. The Learned Counsel further submits that the finding of the Inquiry officer is basically in his personal opinion as those are not supported with any admissible evidence or legally sustainable reason. Law is settled that if a witness whose st....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that in so far as violation Regulation 10(d) of CBLR 28 is concerned, there is no case that the Customs Broker failed to advise his client to comply with the provisions of the Act. Proper instructions were given to the representative of the importer, Shri. Sanjeev to follow the provisions of law. Therefore, violation of regulation 10(d) cannot be made attributable to the Customs Broker. 12. Learned Counsel further submits that Regulation 10(e) requires the Customs Broker to exercise due diligence to ascertain the correctness of any information which he imparts to a client. In order to invoke this provision, the Respondent finds that the Customs Broker failed to enquire about the nature of the goods being imported and to inform it to the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt respectfully submits that his request for cross examination was turned down by finding that the same is not relevant. Request for cross examination was made in the premises of contradictory and incriminating statements given by the importer and his associate. It is worthwhile to note that despite giving clear statement that Shri. Sanjeev had handed over the documents, neither any investigation was conducted nor he was summoned. 16. Learned Counsel also relied on the following decisions: i. M/s. Silver Line Global Freight Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Airport & General)-New Delhi reported in Customs Appeal No. 51371 of 2025 ii. M/s. ATR Logistics India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs Airport & General-N....