TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 1261X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions of the Customs Act and other allied acts and rules and regulation - HELD THAT:- The learned Tribunal on facts found that the value as has been given in the Bill of Entry was enhanced by the approved valuer and further enhanced by the assessing officer of the Customs Department. Therefore, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that in the background of those facts the respondent Customs Broker cannot be held guilty for not able to find out correct value of the goods, as could be seen from the facts of the case that the valuation which was done by the department was much higher than the valuation as suggested by the Government approved valuer which was higher than the value which was declared in the Bill of Entry filed by the resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Adv. Mr. Piyush Kumar, Adv. The Court : Heard Counsel on either sides. It appears that there is a delay of 41 days in filing the appeal. We have perused the affidavit filed in support of the condone delay petition and we find that sufficient cause has been shown for not preferring the appeal within the period of limitation. Accordingly, the application is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. This appeal filed by the Customs under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 (the Act) is directed against the order dated 29.04.2022 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, East Regional Bench, Kolkata (the Tribunal) in Customs Appeal No. 75410 of 2022. The Revenue has raised the following ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lty of Rs. 79,20,000/- on the respondent Customs Broker (Company) and a sum of Rs. 59,40,000/- as penalty for the employee of the respondent company. As against the said order the respondents had filed a writ petition before this Court wherein initially there was an order of stay and subsequently the writ petition was disposed of by relegating an intra Court appeal which was proposed to be filed against the said order. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the respondents that as against the order passed in the writ petition an intra Court Appeal has been filed and the same is pending. However, the present proceedings have been initiated under CBLR 2018. So far as the allegation that respondent has violated regulation 10(d) of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther any substantial question of law arises for consideration. Therefore, the factual finding rendered by the tribunal cannot be interfered and consequently the leave granted by the learned tribunal exonerating the respondents from the allegation of non compliance of regulation 10(d) of the CBLR, 2018 has to be affirmed. The next allegation was that the appellant had failed to comply with the regulation 10(n) of the Act which mandates that the Customs Broker usually verify the correctness of Importer Exporter Code (IEC) number, goods and services tax identification tax (GSTIN) identity of his client and functioning of his client at the declared address by using reliable, independent, authentic document, data or information. The Tribunal not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
