Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2015 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (4) TMI 1159 - CESTAT MUMBAIProhibition of CB License - appellant had violated Regulation 11(a) (not obtaining authorization from the importer to act as Customs Broker) of the CBLR 2013 and Regulation 17(9) (exercising supervision over the conduct of his employees in the transaction of business) - Held that: - there is not even a iota of evidence to the effect that the appellant was aware of the fraudulent activities of Mr. Pravin Jha - Only because a person misuses an Identity Card (Customs Pass in this case) issued by his employer which entitled him to access the Customs area, cannot and does not lead to a belief or suspicion in every case that the employer is aware of the misdeed in the absence of evidence to the contrary. We are therefore not convinced that the appellant is guilty of violating Regulation 11(a). Similarly, the finding that Regulation 17(9) is violated is not established because the employee has acted on his own accord and has not acted in the transaction of business of his employer. The Tribunal held in the case of K.S. Sawant & Co. v. Commissioner of Customs [2013 (12) TMI 119 - CESTAT, MUMBAI] that procurement of business through an intermediary does not amount to sub-letting of business in every case. In the present case the facts are even more diluted and the appellant has neither filed the Bill of Entry nor allowed his license to be used. Therefore, the punishment of prohibiting him from using the license in Mumbai Zone is unwarranted. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|