Top
Begin typing your search above and press return to search.

Lapse or Failure to Comply with CBLR does not Attracts Penalty Action u/s 114 and 114AA of Customs Act :CESTAT [Read Order]

Lapse or Failure to Comply with CBLR does not Attracts Penalty Action u/s 114 and 114AA of Customs Act :CESTAT [Read Order]
X

The Chennai bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that the lapse or failure to comply with the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2013 does not attract penalty action under sections 114 and 114AA of the Customs Act,1962. The revenue appealed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals – II) who had upheld...


The Chennai bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that the lapse or failure to comply with the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2013 does not attract penalty action under sections 114 and 114AA of the Customs Act,1962. 

The revenue appealed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals – II) who had upheld the adjudication order wherein the adjudicating authority had exonerated the respondent from the charges levelled against the respondent-assessee and from imposing penalty under sections 114 and 114AA of the Customs Act.

Jayachandran, the respondent assessee violated Regulation 11(n) under Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations 2013. A. Aruna, the counsel for the assessee contended that for such failure, penal provisions are given under CBLR even for the individual persons who violate the Regulation and submitted that the Lapse or failure to comply with CBLR does not attract penalty action under sec. 114 and 114AA of the Customs Act. 

N. Satyanarayana, the counsel for the department contended that the assessee failed to verify the antecedents of the exporter of the goods and he had not complied with Regulation 11(n) and has thereby contravened the Regulations. 

The Bench observed that there was no concrete proof of a blame-worthy conduct by the appellant to impose penalties or for any other action as per the Act or Rules to merit a remand and the penalty should not be imposed merely because a legal provision provides for it. 

A single-member bench comprising Ajith Kumar (Technical) upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) while dismissing the appeal filed by the revenue. 

To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates

Next Story

Related Stories

Advertisement
Advertisement
All Rights Reserved. Copyright @2019