Tribunal overturns penalties for logistics company, finds compliance with regulations and no evidence of mis-declaration.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by RVL Logistics (I) Pvt. Ltd., setting aside the penalty imposed under Regulation 20(7) and 22 of CBLR, 2013. The charges of alleged violations of Regulation 11(e) and 11(n) were not established as the appellant had complied with KYC norms and provided necessary documents. Regarding mis-declaration of goods, the Tribunal found no evidence of collusion or abetment by the appellant, ruling that mere facilitation without knowledge of consequences does not constitute abetting an offense. The appellant was granted consequential benefits as per the law.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Imposition of penalty under Regulation 20(7) and 22 of CBLR, 2013.
2. Alleged violation of Regulation 11(e) and 11(n) of CBLR, 2013.
3. Mis-declaration of goods concerning description, country of origin, and value.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Imposition of penalty under Regulation 20(7) and 22 of CBLR, 2013:
The appeal was filed by RVL Logistics (I) Pvt. Ltd. (the appellant) against the order imposing a penalty of Rs. 50,000 under Regulation 20(7) and 22 of CBLR, 2013. The proposal to revoke the customs broker license was dropped. The appellant contested the findings of the enquiry officer, arguing that the penalty was not sustainable on merits.

2. Alleged violation of Regulation 11(e) and 11(n) of CBLR, 2013:
The allegations included that the appellant did not exercise due diligence in discharging their obligations under Regulation 11(e) and failed to verify the antecedents and correctness of the IEC number, identity, and functioning of their client under Regulation 11(n). The enquiry officer recommended further action, but the appellant argued that they had complied with all the KYC norms and provided all necessary documents. The Tribunal found that the charge under Regulation 11(n) was not established as the appellant had received several documents corroborating the genuineness of their client. Similarly, the charge under Regulation 11(e) was not established as there was no act of omission or commission indicating a lack of due diligence.

3. Mis-declaration of goods concerning description, country of origin, and value:
The appellant filed 16 bills of entry for warehousing goods on behalf of M/s AAA Impex Services. During re-export, it was found that the memory of the Micro SD Cards was "Zero Free space and Zero used space," and the goods were mis-declared concerning description, country of origin, and value. A show cause notice was issued, proposing the confiscation of goods and penalties on the appellant and its director. The appellant argued that the information filled in the clearance documents was based on the documents provided by the client, and there was no case of forgery or fraud committed by them. The Tribunal found no case of collusion or abetment by the appellant and held that mere facilitation without knowledge of consequences would not amount to abetting an offense.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order, and held that the charges under Regulation 11(e) and 11(n) were not established. The appellant was entitled to consequential benefits in accordance with the law.

---