2020 (10) TMI 782

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t Mumbai Customs. 3. The appellant filed 16 bills of entry under Section 59 of the Customs Act, 1962 for warehousing of the goods on behalf of M/s AAA Impex Services for clearance of "Micro SD Cards 128‟, during the period from June 2013 to November 2013 imported from M/s Octagon International FZCO, UAE. The clearance work was undertaken after following KYC procedures on reference from the Freight Forwarder M/s Radiant Maritime (India) Pvt. Ltd. 4. Out of the total 16 bills of entry, three consignments warehoused in September 2013 were entered for export to M/s Palayesh Gostar Hamoon Trading, Iran under shipping bill no. 8387231 dated 11.11.2013 as detailed below:   B/E No./date Qty in Pcs Assessable value (Rs.) Duty involved (Rs.) 01 3205929/06.09.13 1000 1,33,60,342/ 22,51,805 02 3205941/06.09.13 1155 1,57,65,203 26,57,130 03 3206067/06.09.13 875 1,39,34,119 23,48,512   Total 3030 4,30,59,664 72,57,447 5. The aforesaid 03 Bills of Entry were facilitated under R.M.S. where no Assessment and no Examination was prescribed. The goods were classified under CTH 85235290 with duty @ NIL +....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nder Section 113(h)(i) of Customs Act along with order for notional confiscation of goods exported earlier vide aforementioned shipping bill in June/July, 2013. Further penalty was also imposed on M/s AAA Impex Services and its partner Mr. Akshaya Singhal. Penalty of Rs. 20 lakhs was also imposed on the appellant CB - RVL Logistics (I) Pvt. Ltd. and Rs. 10 lakhs on its Director Shri Shijo Chummar under Section 114AA of the Act. 8. The appellant CHA had appealed against the earlier order in original dated 31.10.2016 wherein penalty on the CHA company was reduced and penalty on its Director was set aside and CB firm is in further appeal before this Tribunal. 9. Thereafter show cause notice dated 14 May, 2018 was issued on the appellant - CB referring to the aforementioned bills of entry and shipping bills filed for M/s AAA Impex Services. Pursuant to investigation and enquiry emerged that M/s Optagun International in collusion with M/s AAA Impex Services have participated in Hawala operations of currency in terms of para 2.35 of FTP 2009-2014 by export of such goods to Iran which have been imported against payment of convertible currency is permissible against payment in Indian....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... under Regulation 11(n) of CBLR, 2013. It is further urged that the enquiry officer has primarily reproduced the findings in the earlier order in original dated 5.11.2016 in the case of the importer and in the case of M/s AAA Impex Services and mechanically confirmed the allegations in the show cause notice, which is fit to be rejected. Further, the observations of the enquiry officer that the role of customs broker is important in filing the document for clearance and they should verify the authenticity and correctness of the documents to ensure compliance, thus there is violation of Regulation 11(e) of CBLR, 2013. 14. Learned Counsel further urges that Regulation 11(e) requires a custom broker to exercise due diligence to ascertain the correctness of the information which he imparts to a client with reference to any work related to clearance of cargo or baggage. Further, it is urged that there is no specific lapse on the part of the appellant CB. Further as per the facts on record the appellant CB did not impart any information to their client which resulted in alleged mis-declaration. Neither any case of collusion or abetment is made out. In fact the appellant communicated ev....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ecord that their client - M/s AAA Impex Services have not disowned any of the documents of clearance. Nor there is any allegation by the client of any mis-declaration made at the instance of the appellant CB. Further under the facts and circumstances, there is no way the appellant could have verified the description, value or the country of origin, and the same were as per document provided to them. Further, there is no allegation nor any case made out that the appellant CB has knowingly used any documents which are not true or dubious. Further there was no apparent reason for the appellant to doubt any of the documents provided to them by their client. Moreover under the scheme of the CBLR, 2013, the appellant CB is required to vigilant and if anything irregular comes in his knowledge, than to advise his client properly and if required to inform the appropriate custom authority. Further, the allegation of collusion is also not made out. There is no case of any illegal gains made by the appellant CB. Thus, the charges against the appellant are not proved and the same are based on assumptions and presumptions. Further in the facts of the case there is no loss of revenue to the exche....