Tribunal Cannot Interfere with Decision of Original Authority w/out Evidence, Illogicality, or Procedural Impropriety: CESTAT [Read Order]
The Tribunal observed that its role in disciplinary matters is limited and does not extend to substituting its own view for that of the original authority.
![Tribunal Cannot Interfere with Decision of Original Authority w/out Evidence, Illogicality, or Procedural Impropriety: CESTAT [Read Order]](https://images.taxscan.in/h-upload/2025/06/23/2053356-cestat-taxscan.webp "Tribunal Cannot Interfere with Decision of Original Authority w/out Evidence, Illogicality, or Procedural Impropriety: CESTAT [Read Order]")
The Tribunal observed that its role in disciplinary matters is limited and does not extend to substituting its own view for that of the original authority.The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in its recent ruling reaffirmed that the appellate intervention is not warranted unless the decision of the original authority is found to be unsupported by evidence, illogical, or suffering from procedural impropriety.
The appellant, Raj Brothers Shipping Pvt. Ltd., were the holders of a Customs Broker (CB) License issued by the Chennai Customs. The CB was imposed with a penalty of Rs.50,000 under Regulation 18 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations (CBLR) 2013, for having violated Regulation 11(d) of the CBLR.
The contention was that the CB failed to bring to the notice of the Assistant Commissioner / Deputy Commissioner about the mis-declaration of weight of the goods imported by Global Impex in the Bills of Entry filed by them.
The Commissioner held that the CB who collects the weighment slips at the time of clearance from Container Freight Station (CFS), should have noticed the discrepancy in the declared weight and the weight found in the weighment slip and alert the department.
The appellant submitted that there is no statutory requirement for CBs to verify weight and that they file the bill based on documents provided by the importer and the weighment of goods at CFS is between the CFS and Customs authorities.
The appellant was represented by N. Viswanathan argued that the proceedings were initiated after the licence was revoked and beyond the prescribed period of 180 days. They also argued that the enquiry report was ex parte and that they were held guilty under Regulation 11(e), which was not part of the show cause notice.
Additionally, they submitted that no contrary evidence was brought on record to rebut the Director’s statement and claimed that the penalty was excessive and unjustified.
The bench comprising Ajit Kumar (Technical Member) and P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) held that the jurisdiction of the tribunal to interfere with disciplinary matters or punishment cannot be equated with appellate jurisdiction.
The tribunal relied on the supreme court's decision in the case of Parma Nanda vs. State of Haryana (1989) and State Bank of India vs. Samarendra Kishore Endow (1994) and held that the tribunal is not expected to interfere with the decision unless the findings are not based on any evidence, are illogical or suffer from procedural impropriety or are shocking to the conscience of the court.
It further reaffirmed that the tribunals cannot reappreciate evidence or substitute its own judgment for that of the original authority as the original authority is considered to have greater expertise and direct involvement in customs matters. Accordingly, the appeal was disposed of.
How to Audit Public Charitable Trusts under the Income Tax Act Click Here
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
