2017 (10) TMI 1267

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....supplements in violation of FSSAI Act 2006. The bills of entry for such import consignments were filed by the appellant as Customs Broker. The investigations undertaken by DRI led to the conclusion that the food supplements were imported in violation of the norms fixed in FSSAI Act. Proceedings were initiated for confiscation of such imported goods and show cause notice was issued. On the basis of the SCN issued by DRI, proceedings were initiated against the appellant - Customs Broker for revocation of the CB License. The enquiry officer in his report exonerated the appellant. However, the licensing authority i.e. the Commissioner, issued a dissenting note and after obtaining the comments of the appellant, passed the impugned order in which....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of misuse of Import Export Code number in which certain dubious persons imported the said goods making use of the IEC Code number of M/s. Unisys Enterprises. The Commissioner has recorded that Shri Aman Vachhar, kingpin in the case has been in constant touch with Shri Sameer Jha, proprietor of the appellant firm. Finally he submitted that if the appellant / Custom Broker has performed his duty diligently, such evasion would not have taken place. 7. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence investigated the case of fraudulent import of food supplements, by certain unscrupulous elements, in contravention of FSSAI Act 2006. The appellant had filed the relevant bills of entry. After enquiring into the activity undertaken by the appellant, the En....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... partner nor held any other official position in that firm. Both the partners of M/s. Unisys Enterprises have disclosed in their statements to DRI that they were not aware of the details of the imports and had never met Shri Sameer Jha, proprietor of CB. From this, it emerges that the appellant has failed to obtain the authorization from the actual importer and violation of regulation 11(a) stands established. 10. Regarding regulation 11 (d), requiring the CB to advice their client to comply with the provisions of customs Act, it stands established that the appellant has not even met the actual importer and as such requesting of advising the client for compliance of various legal positions does not arise. In view of the above failure to ob....