TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (11) TMI 501
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hok Sharma and engaged in the business of Custom House Agent service for which licence has been issued to them by Commissioner (Import & General), New Delhi, under Regulation 9(1) of CHALR, 2004 Licensing Regulation having its validity till 9.10.2022. The appellant was engaged by importer M/s Newtex Exim Pvt. Ltd. for the clearance of their consignment of rough diamond. The appellant has taken the necessary documents required for the purpose of Customs clearance and KYC norms such as IEC certificate, address proof, identity proof, (PAN Card, Voter ID or passport), bank statement, bank attested signature of the proprietor/company of the importer firm. The appellant, after verifying and satisfying themselves all these documents, have filed the Bill of Entry No. 4314276 dated 10.1.2004 for clearance of rough diamond imported on behalf of their client, M/s Neotex Exim Pvt. Ltd. However, the consignment was detained by the Commissioner of Customs for the alleged undervaluation and subsequently the valuation of the imported consignment was determined by the jewellery appraiser on 10.2.2010. It was found, on examination, that the declared value of imported item i.e. rough diamond was high....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the IEC code from the DGFT website. After getting satisfied with the relevant record provided for KYC norm, appellant accepted the import documents and filed the relevant bills of entry. • That the appellant filed the Bill of entry for clearance of rough diamond on behalf of their client, Neotex Exim Pvt. Ltd. However, the said consignment was detained by the Commissioner of Customs and later on the valuation had been done by the Jewellery Appraiser on 10.2.2014, where he concluded that the declared value of the imported rough diamond, was much more than prevalent market price/import price. As per the Jewellery Appraiser report, the actual value of the consignment was arrived at USD 14,297 instead of declared value of USD 88,641/-. • That, after the preliminary investigation the case was transferred to the DRI by New Custom House. That, in the course of enquiry that the statement of G card holder of the appellant company has been recorded on 17.6.2014 and thereafter the statement of appellant No. 2 - Shri Ashok Sharma, Director of the appellant company (Appellant No. 2) was recorded on 2.7.2014 where inter alia, stated that :- (i) That Shri Uday Bhaga....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s incorrect as the appellant vide their letter dated 2.1.2016 has raised their objection on two grounds, first the alleged violation of CHALR, 2004 is not applicable in their case due to superseding the same by CBLR, 2013 and secondly the show cause notice has not been issued under Section 124 of the Act. It was also stated by the appellant that it is an established Rule that physical verification of premises or personal meeting the importer is not required for the verification of KYC norms as per CBLR Regulation 2013. • That the appellant only came to know about the alleged mis-declaration of the imported goods after examination by Jewellery Appraiser and further by the government registered valuer. Thus, the value declared at the time of filing of Bill of Entry, they could not have known about the alleged mis-declaration by the importer. Finally, it was also argued for contravention of provisions of CBLR, 2013, penalty cannot be imposed under Section 112(a) (b) of the Customs Act, 1962 and proposed action under Section 114AA has not been explained /mentioned in the show cause notice. Considering the above submission it was argued that the show cause notice deserves t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....graphs as true; or (c) allowing to draw representative samples of such goods, in the presence of the Magistrate, and certifying the correctness of any list of samples so drawn. (1C) Where an application is made under sub-section (1B), the Magistrate shall, as soon as may be, allow the application.] (2) Where any goods are seized under sub-section (1) and no notice in respect thereof is given under clause (a) of section 124 within six months of the seizure of the goods, the goods shall be returned to the person from whose possession they were seized: Provided that the aforesaid period of six months may, on sufficient cause being shown, be extended by the 2[Commissioner of Customs] for a period not exceeding six months." Section 110(2) of the Act deals with extension of time period for issuance of show cause notice within prescribed period of six months of the seizure of the goods". 6. It is obvious from the show cause notice that the same has not invoked the provisions of Section 124 of Customs Act in this case. The adjudicating authority has dealt with the above issue in the order at para 27.19 of the Act, wherein it is mentioned as under : "27.19 I find that impo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tended the time limit for issue of show cause notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act in respect of detained goods vide Bill of Entry No. 4314276 dated 10.1.2014 by six months i.e. up to 29.1.2019 under the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 110 of the Customs Act. From the above, it has been held that the present show cause notice is issued in continuation to the earlier show cause notice issued by the DRI where the provisions of Section 124 of the Act has been invoked. The appellant has not provided the copies of these orders before us so as to arrive at the conclusion as to whether the impugned show cause notice and adjudication order is the extension of the previous show cause notices along with addendum which has been clearly spelt out with adjudicating authority. Therefore, we have no option but to hold that the present show cause notice in effect has to be treated as having been issued under Section 124 of the Customs Act in effect has to be treated as proviso under 110(2) of the Act. 8. Regarding the following of the KYC norms by the appellant, we find that the statement of Shri Vivek Sharma letter dated 21.1.2015, the employee of M/s HLPL, has stated that when....