2020 (5) TMI 103

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y and battery cell. D.R.I gathered specific intelligence that one Shri Thusindra Gnanaraj was importing electronic goods in the name of several IECs by resorting to mis-declaration of description, value, quantity and also importing goods without declaring to Customs in the Bill of Entry. On examination of the subject consignment imported by M/s.Greenway Communication it was seen that the importer had not declared certain items in the Bill of Entry. Though the importer had imported rechargeable batteries and power banks, these were not declared by the importer. Such electronic items are restricted under Electronics & IT Goods (Requirements of Compulsory Registration) Order, 2012 and the importer has to produce BIS certificate for importing s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... submitted that after confirmation from the DGFT website, the appellant filed the Bill of Entry for the said importer. The appellant therefore has made reasonable effort to know about the importer. The non-declaration of goods by the importer was not known to the appellant and appellant has not abetted any offence in any manner. The department has placed reliance on the statement given by Santosh wherein it is alleged that Santosh had come to know about mis-decalration in a previous consignment and that the same was not informed by him to the customs authorities. The Ld. counsel argued that the statement was retracted by issuing the reply to the SCN. Appellant had requested for cross examination of the witnesses which was also not granted. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....017 (357) ELT 296 (Tri.-Mumbai) (iv) G.N.D. Cargo Movers Vs CC (General) New Delhi 2017 (357) ELT 1184 (Tri.-Del.) 3. Ld. A.R Ms. K. Komathi appeared and argued on behalf of the department. She explained the facts of the case and submitted that appellant has not verified antecedents or the whereabouts of the importer viz., M/s.Greenway Communication. Dealings were done by Mr. Santosh and Mr. Janaki Raman with one Mr.Santhakumar who represented himself to be the person associated with the importer. In fact, there is no such importer as M/s.Greenway Communication and the said fact would have come to light if the appellant had done proper verification of the antecedents of the importer. In fact, Mr. Santosh had categorically stated....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....red goods. In para-3 of the OIO itself, it is noted that as per DGFT website, M/s.Greenway Communication is a proprietaryship concern of which Mohamed Hanifa is the proprietor. The address of the registered premises is also exhibited in the website. The appellants have argued that KYC norms / IEC details were verified from the DGFT website. When the Ministry of Commerce who has granted IE licence has exhibited the details of IEC holders in their website which can be verified, the appellant cannot be found fault when the same has been accepted to be true and correct. The other ground is that Mr. Santosh and Mr. Janaki Raman had given statements that previous consignment of the same importer also non-declared goods and therefore they ought to....