TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 808X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and he did not exercise due diligence was not established by the revenue by bringing on record the role played by the respondent in the alleged fake exports. It appears to be not in dispute that the respondent was not a co-noticee against any action initiated under the Customs Act along with the exporters and the allegation against the respondent is that they alleged to have violated regulation 10(d) and 10(e) of the Act. The Tribunal after noting the facts of the case slightly modified the order of penalty by ordering forfeiture of only Rs.25,000/- from and out of the security deposit furnished by the respondent. The Tribunal has examined the facts of the matter and exercised discretion and interfered with the order of revocation of li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs as the case may be which the respondent failed to do. c) Whether the respondent failed to advise the client to comply with provisions of the Act and Rules and Regulations and failed to bring the matter of this non compliance to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, thereby violating the provisions of Regulation 10(d) of CBLR, 2018. d) Whether an offence once made can be undone or compensated by paying any amount to the offender. Whether a concept of leniency or proving bonafide by the offender by making payment is at all acceptable by the statute. e) The intention of the legislature is not cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l before the Tribunal. The Tribunal took note of the facts of the case and noted that let export orders were issued by the Customs Department after due verification by the concerned officials and the export manifest was also generated thereby implying that the goods in question has crossed the border. The Tribunal noted that in such factual scenario, the mere allegation that the respondent has not advised the exporter in an appropriate manner and he did not exercise due diligence was not established by the revenue by bringing on record the role played by the respondent in the alleged fake exports. It appears to be not in dispute that the respondent was not a co-noticee against any action initiated under the Customs Act along with the export ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
