Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2023 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (4) TMI 324 - AT - CustomsRevocation of customs Broker License - forfeiture of security deposit - levy of penalty - non-verification of various documents - allegation against the appellant is based on the reports of the jurisdictional officers in respect of the three RUDs attached to the DGARM Report - violation of Regulation 10(n) of CBLR, 2018 - HELD THAT:- It is found that physical verification of the business premises is not an obligation cast upon the CB, under Rule 10(n) of CBLR, 2018. Decision in the case of Tribunal is squarely applicable in this case - In the present case also, the original Offence report was based on the DGARM Report, as in the case of M/S ANAX AIR SERVICES PVT. LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI (AIRPORT AND GENERAL) [2022 (1) TMI 115 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] - In the present case also, as per DGARM Report, the 10 exporters facilitated by the appellant were later found to be non-existent during subsequent verification by the department. The appellant has verified all the documents such as IEC, GSTIN, Aadhar, PAN etc. submitted by the exporters before processing their shipping bills. Later if they were not found to be existing in the said addresses, the appellant cannot be held responsible for that as held by the principal bench in the case of Anax Air Services, under similar facts and circumstances. The only allegation against the appellant in the impugned order is that it violated Regulation 10 (n) which is not true. The Ld. Principal Commissioner was not correct in holding that the appellant Customs Broker has violated Regulation 10(n) of CBLR, 2018 - Appeal allowed - decided in favour of appellant.
|