TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (12) TMI 529
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the name of M/s Apollo Enterprises (IEC No. 0316933660) without declaring the brand name and actual value and other specifications of the goods in the bill of entry filed for customs clearance. Accordingly, the said CHA or the custom broker were directed to furnish all the relevant import documents. It was revealed that the said bill of entry have been filed as per the instruction of one Shri Samir Shah, Proprietor of M/s Pankit Forwarders (also the cousin of Mr. Dewang Manesh Shah). 4. Further, in search at M/s Pankit Forwarders - import documents pertaining to the said consignment were retrieved alongwith documents for past import of M/s Apollo Enterprises. Additional invoice pertaining to the consignment under investigation was also recovered. It was revealed that the past clearances by M/s Apollo Enterprises were also handled by Shri Samir Shah availing the services of appellant custom broker. 5. As per the Bill of Entry No. 7304512, the goods under import were declared as under: (a) Speaker with wire for LED TV (b) Back Cover for LED TV (use for 32") (c) PCB with wire for LED TV (use for 32"), and (d) Accessories for LED TV (Remote Control/ Plastic Holder/ Sc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Tanmay Global Logistics (Customs Broker firm) was also recorded who inter alia stated that they had cleared six import clearances for M/s Apollo Enterprises consisting of parts of LED TV. They had never met the proprietor of M/s Apollo Enterprises. Shri Samir Shah, Proprietor of M/s Pankit Forwarders was his cousin and all relevant documents including KYC were received from Shri Samir Shah. M/s Apollo Enterprises was the client of Shri Samir Shah and the bill of entry was filed as per his instruction. He was aware that Shri Samir Shah is having CB licence which was lying under suspension since 2012. 10. Shri Shantaram Kajrekar, Prop. of M/s Apollo Enterprises was summoned and his statement was recorded. He inter alia stated that he had never applied for an IEC. However, he had given copies of PAN Card, Aadhaar Card and photographs to a person named Shri Sanjay Jadhav who had approached him with a promise to open a bank account. It was only on 04.11.2016, that Shri Sanjay Jadhav requested him to meet Shri Samir Shah, when he came to know that an IEC have been issued in the name of his proprietary concern - M/s Apollo Enterprises. In the course of investigation by the DRI he came t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ellant - M/s Tanmay Global Logistics. 13. Further, the goods under import under bill of entry No. 7304512 filed through M/s S. M. Wairkar CB, were examined by the officer of DRI, MZU on 26.11.2016 at CFS M/s Preeti Logistics Limited in the presence of Shri Ashok Purohit, Shri Samir Shah and employee of Customs Broker. On examination, the goods were found as follows: Sr. No. Description Quantity (Pcs.) 1 PCBs for various sizes for Sony LED TV 1228 2 Speaker for LED TV 1228 (pairs) 3 Back cover for Sony LED TV 32" 360 4 Back cover for Sony LED TV 40" 620 5 Back cover for Sony LED TV 43" 100 6 Back cover for Sony LED TV 48" 76 7 Back cover for Sony LED TV 49" 22 8 Back cover for Sony LED TV 55" 50 Total Back cover for Sony LED TV 1228 9 Empty cartons for Sony LED TV 32" (KLV-32R302D) 360 10 Empty cartons for Sony LED TV 40" (KLV-40R352D) 620 11 Empty cartons for Sony LED TV 43" (KDL-43W800C) 100 12 Empty cartons for Sony LED TV 48" (KLV-48W652D) 76 13 Empty cartons for Sony LED TV 49" (KDL-49W750D) 22 14 Empty cartons for Sony LED TV 55" (KLV-55W800C) 50 Total Empty carton for Sony LED TV 1228 15 Acces....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e declared RSP. On the basis of statement recorded and the documents retrieved/ submitted during the course of investigation, corroborated the allegation of mis-declaration and suppression of value of the goods as well as mis-declaration of the description resulting in short levy of duty. 17. It further appears that the appellant Custom Broker as required under the CBLR, 2013 was required to obtain the authorisation from their client by whom they are employed/engaged as CB for transaction of their business or through an employee duly approved by the Deputy/ Assistant Commissioner of Customs. CB is further required to advise his client to comply with the provisions of the Act, further required to exercise due diligence to ascertain the correctness of the information which he imparts to his client and verify antecedent, correctness of IEC and identity of his client and the functioning of his client at the declared address, by using reliable independent and authentic documents, data or information. It further appears that Shri Samir Shah who did not have the custom licence has used the licence of the appellant for filing the bill of entry on behalf of Shri Ashok Purohit. Further, as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rms of Regulation 18 read with Regulation 20 of CBLR, 2013 with proposal to further impose penalty under Regulation 22 read with Regulation 20 of CBLR, 2013. Enquiry officer was appointed to enquire, namely Shri Veer Prakash, Assistant Commissioner of Customs, who submitted the inquiry report. 21. Appellant had filed the detailed submission before the enquiry officer on 20.07.2018. 22. The enquiry officer, Shri Veer Prakash submitted his report dated 24.08.2018 with his finding as follows: "In the show cause notice it has been alleged that M/s Tanmay Global Logistics has intentionally violated the provisions of Customs Act, 1962 and CBLR 2013 by involving themselves in modus operandi of evasion of customs duty of nearly 90 lacs (as detailed in para No. 13.2 above). The noticee failed to discharge their duty to verify the KYC norms and other obligations imposed upon them vide CBLR 2013. So it was proposed in the SCN to revoke the CB Licence and to impose penalty under provisions of CBLR 2013. However, the notice has denied the allegations proposed in the SCN. I find that the notice played a major role in evasion of duty through Sh. Samir Shah as explained in the SCN. In....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... serious fault on their part, is not warranted and wrong. Further, it is evident from the statement recorded of Shri Samir Shah, Shri Ashok Purohit and Shri Shantaram Kajrekar that the appellant was not aware about the illicit procurement and use of the IEC of M/s Apollo Enterprises by Shri Ashok Purohit. Thus, the impugned order holding violation of provisions of Regulation 11(a), 11(d), 11(e), 11(f) and 11(n) of CBLR, 2013 is perverse and none of these provisions are attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case. There is no allegation of filing the bill of entry, knowingly the same to be misdeclared. 24. As regards the charge of violation of Regulation 11(a) of CBLR, 2013 is concerned, is untenable as appellant before attending to the clearance had taken authorisation from the importer - M/s Apollo Enterprises. Further, the live consignment which was investigated was not filed by the appellant CB. The appellant came to know about the mischievous use of IEC of M/s Apollo enterprises by Shri Ashok Purohit only during the course of investigation. Further, under the facts and circumstances as alleged, there is no case of violation of Regulation 11(d) of CBLR, 2013 made out,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s was forged. Thus, there is no violation of the provisions of Regulation 11(n) of the CBLR, 2013. The appellant also relies on the ruling of this Tribunal in Yogesh Kumar vs. Commr. of Customs, New Delhi (Import & General) -2016 (344) ELT 586 (Tri. Del.) wherein this Tribunal has held that once there is a finding by other wing of same Department to the extent that appellant had made efforts to find out the genuinity of exporter by looking into the website, as regards IEC code as also PAN card etc. there is no justifiable reason for the Commissioner to deviate from said finding. It is further urged that Revenue has no case that the said document which stands examined by Customs broker from respective website was not available at such website. Thus, in the absence of any discrepancy detected in exported goods, penalty under Regulation 22 of CBLR, 2013 was set aside. Appellant further relies on the ruling of this Tribunal in G.N.D. Cargo Movers vs. Commr. of Cus. (General) New Delhi -2017 (357) ELT 1184 (Tri. Del.) where it is held that in case of mistake by importer there is no reason to conclude that Customs Broker did not exercise due diligence to ascertain correctness of informat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... managing Mumbai office and handling the clearances. After this incidence, Ms. Madhu Gaur dissolved the partnership in the year 2016, and is now the Prop. of M/s Tanmay Global Logistic. Further, it is urged that Ms. Madhu Gaur unfortunately became widow in the year 2008 and is having three school going children to be cared and is facing grave hardship and difficulty. Learned Counsel further urges that for the act of alleged omission by the partner Shri Dewang M. Shah, the appellant CHA should not be subjected to such severe and disproportionate punishment and accordingly prayed for relief. He further relies on the ruling of Tribunal reported at 2017 (358) ELT 1200 (Tri. Mum.). 28. Heard the learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue who have relied upon the findings in the impugned order. Further urges that in the facts and circumstances, the appellant firm have been performing their work as a CHA negligently. The omission in taking normal care in receiving instructions and documents from the importer, has resulted in evasion of custom duty. Accordingly, he urges for dismissal of the appeal. 29. Having considered the rival contentions, we find that there is no case of con....