TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (8) TMI 1534
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....LR 2013) for the contravention of the Regulation 11(d), 11(e) and 11(m) thereof. Also, a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- was imposed upon the appellant under Regulation 22 read with Regulation 20 of CBLR, 2013. 2. The licence of the appellant was revoked and penalty was imposed for their alleged role in custom clearance of consignment imported vide bill of entry No. 8606801 dated 18.02.2017 for the import of 71 pieces of Samsung 65" LED monitor, at the accessible value of Rs. 1,50,59,110/- by one of their clients M/s Tim Delhi Airport Advertising (P) Ltd. (for short „TDAAL‟), who purchased the goods imported by M/s Infosoft Digital Designs & Services (Pvt.) Ltd., New Delhi (for short „IDDSL‟) on High Sea Sale basis (HSS) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dated 16.02.2017. This agreement is signed by both the parties on 16.02.2017. Even the concerned Master Airway Bill (MAWB) and House Airway Bill (HAWB) shows that both are dated 16.02.2017 which is also declared as such on the face of the Bill of entry in question. M/s IDDSL have also clearly stated in their letters dated 11.03.2017 and 14.03.2017 that the impugned consignment had been handed over to the Airlines in Singapore for onward shipment to India on 16.02.2017; only after that they entered into the High Sea Sales Agreement with M/s TDAAL on 16.02.2017. Thus, the impugned goods had already moved beyond the control of M/s IDDSL and the supplier when the High Sea Sale Agreement was inked. In addition, the imp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs." However, no specific instance of non compliance with CBLR brought on record in para 12(a)/17.1/25.1. Further, the appellant in his HSS agreement was incorrect. Also, the Customs Manual on Self Assessment, 2011 does not expressly state that such agreements are invalid. 4. PROVISIONS OF REGULATION 11(e) OF THE CUSTOMS BROKERS LICENSING REGULATIONS FOLLOWED - Regulation 11(e) of the CBLR, 2013 prescribes that "A Customs Broker shall exercise due diligence to ascertain the correctness of any information which he imparts to a client with reference to any work related to clearance of cargo or baggage." In the instant ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(Tri. - Bang.) (c) Tanfac Industries Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Cuddalore 2009 (240) ELT 341 (Mad.) In all of these cases, the issue was regarding the availability of cenvat credit under the Cenvat Credit Rules. In the cases where the appellants have used their SFIS scrip or SIF scrip. These cases are not relevant on the ground that in this case the SFIS scrip or SIF scrip has been genuinely used by the importer and the only issue is as to whether this will be treated as exempted from payment of duty and therefore the non availability of cenvat credit under the Cenvat Credit Rules. This is not the case here but the case is regarding the misuse of SFIS scrip by the importer who is not entitled to do the same util....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s not correct and in order as per the provisions of Customs Manual but the appellant (CB) has failed to advice his client about the non application of SFIS scrip in the case of M/s IDDSL for consignment import by IDDSL. 8. I find from the submissions of the appellant before the Customs Authority that they have accepted their fault and wrongdoing. Once that is so, "what is admitted need not to be probed" as held in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. System Component Pvt. Ltd. 2004 (165) ELT 136 (S.C.) which is subsequently followed in the decision of Hon‟ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of M/s Shivshakti Steel Tubes Vs. Commission of Central Excise, Ludhiana 2007-TOIL-552-HC(P&H). 9. The appellant also fa....