2016 (4) TMI 971

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t of Rs. 75,000/- and imposing a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on the appellant. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant, a licensed Customs Broker, was engaged in the customs clearance work at ICD, Tughlakabad. Certain investigations were conducted by the officers of DRI regarding a consignment of auto parts imported by M/s. Spreet International. The goods were examined on 5.5.2014 and were found to be auto parts as per the packing list and the goods appeared to be covered by the Third Schedule of Customs Tariff Act, 1985 to attract retail sale price based assessment. The goods were detained. The importer filed a bill of entry on 23.05.2014 through the appellant on first check basis. As no retail sale price was found on the packag....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ce was totally devoid of merit. The main grounds of appeal by the appellants are  (a) The appellants have fulfilled the obligations as prescribed under Regulation 11 and Circular No.9/2010-Cus dated 8.4.2010 regarding KYC norms for the clients;  (b) The bill of entry in the present case was filed after the goods were detained by the officers of DRI. The bill of entry was filed for verification of the contents before assessment, on first check basis. Hence, there can be no allegation of intentional violation of any provisions of Customs Act by the appellant;  (c) The inquiry report examined all aspects of the case and concluded correctly that the appellant have not violated the provisions of CBLR, 2013. 5. Ld. AR reite....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... also note that in the present case the contravention alleged against the importer is non-declaration of retail sale price on auto parts imported by them for assessment under Section 4 A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for CVD. We find that the bill of entry was filed by the appellant after the goods were detained by the officers of DRI. The said bill of entry was filed on first check basis for verification of the goods before assessment. In such a situation, we find that no malafide or intentional violation of any provisions of the Customs Act can be alleged on the part of the Customs broker. Regarding KYC norms and obligations under Regulation 11, we find that case as made out in the original order is neither convincing nor sustainable. ....