Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2022 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (1) TMI 1019 - AT - CustomsLevy of penalty on Customs Broker - exporter was not possessing Export inspection Agency (EIA) Certificate as was mandatorily required by a milk product exporter in terms of Section 7 of Export (Quality Control & inspection) Act, 1963 - violation of regulation 10(d), 10 (e) and 10 (n) of Customs Broker Licenses Regulation 2013 - HELD THAT:- The perusal of the regulations makes it abundantly clear that the said Regulation burden the Customs Broker with the mandatory duty of exercising utmost due diligence with respect to the correctness of the information which he imparts to a client with reference to any work related to clearance of cargo or baggage and to advise his client to comply with requisite statutory provisions and to verify the correctness of antecedents and documents of his client. The appellant herein was the agent for the exporter who was exporting the products as per export quality control and inspection Act, 1963 section 7 thereof. There is no denial either of the appellant or even of the exporter that the said EIA certificate was not annexed with the Shipping Bills. There is a clear admission that the Certificate was not issued to the exporter at the time of filing of the impugned shipping bill. This is otherwise apparent from the record that the said certificate was obtained on 23.12.2019 i.e. after filing of the shipping bills and even after the initiation of the impugned investigation. The said observation is sufficient to hold the non-compliance of Regulation 10 (e) by the appellant - As per Regulation 10 (d) the appellant has another statutory duty of informing with diligence his client to comply with the provisions of the CBLR and in case of non-compliance to bring the matter to the notice of Dy. Commr. Of Customs all Asstt. Commr of Customs. The duty burdened upon the appellant vide these regulations cannot be set aside on the mere plea of ignorance by the CB/CHA There are no infirmity in the order where the reasonable benefit of the given facts and circumstances has already been extended in favour of the appellant by the adjudicating authority below by not revoking the license and by not forfeiting the security deposit - Imposition of penalty is accordingly, held to be justified - appeal dismissed.
|