AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (8) TMI 241
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the bill of entry filed' (b) Some cartons with Hard Disk Drives were found wherein inspection report was mentioned as "This hard drive was erased according to NIST SP - 8000 - 88 Standard"; (c) No permission has been obtained by the importer from any brand holders prior to import of the said brand; and (d) Import of old and used/refurbished Hard Disk Drivers falls under the restricted category. However, no licence/permission to this effect was obtained from the competent authority in violation of regulations of the Foreign Trade Policies and various provisions of Customs Rules. Statements were recorded and after investigation, it was revealed that M/s. U.V. Infotech, who had imported goods using their IEC was not the owner of the imported goods. The KYC and other relevant documents of M/s. U.V. Infotech required for import was handed over to Shri Dhurv Bhavsar, who in turn had handed the same to appellant and arranged the appellant for clearing the imported goods. Thus, M/s. UV Infotech though was the IEC holder for import of goods, was not the actual owner of the imported goods. Shri Tanzeem Tanvir Shaikh had used the IEC of M/s. U.V. Infotech for import of this consi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....port, which the importer had not obtained. 4. The first allegation raised by department is that the appellant has violated Regulations 10(a) of CBLR, 2018 on the ground that the appellant had not obtained the authorisation from the importer before filing the documents and bill of entry. This allegation is factually erroneous. That as per the statement of Shri R. Kannan Pillai, the Power of Attorney of the Customs Broker, it is clearly stated by him that he had obtained the KYC of the importer. The copy of the letter dated 01.03.2019 of the importer, M/s. UV Infotech authorising the appellant, M/s. CBN Impex Pvt. Ltd., as their Customs broker to clear their consignment was also given to the Inquiry Officer to establish that the appellant had not violated any of the Regulations. Inspite of this, the Commissioner held that as M/s. U.V. Infotech is only the IEC holder and not the actual importer, and that the authorizations obtained is not sufficient. It is submitted that the bill of entry is always filed in the name of the IEC holder and the authorisation has to be given only by the IEC holder. Even as per the show-cause notice, the IEC holder is very much aware of the imports and it....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lder for filing the bill of entry. Merely because the goods belong to another person, who is part of the family business, it cannot be said that there is misuse of IEC by lending the same to another person. 4.2 The learned counsel relied on the decision rendered by the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Manjunatha Cargo Pvt. Ltd., Vs Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore reported in 2021 (375) E.L.T.245 (Tri.-Bang.) to argue that when there is no evidence on record to show that the Customs broker had knowledge regarding the lending of IEC to another, the Customs broker cannot be held guilty of violation of regulations. Further that Customs broker is only required to verify the correctness of IEC No., identify of client and whether such client is at the declared address. Physical inspection of premises of the importer/exporter by the Customs broker is not required. The learned counsel relied on the following decisions also:- (i) Hamid Fahim Ansari Vs Commissioner of Customs (Import), Nhava Sheva reported in 2009 (241) E.L.T.168 (Bom.); (ii) Proprietor, M/s. Carmel Exports & Imports Vs Commissioner of Customs, Cochin reported in 2012 (276) E.L.T. 505 (Ker.); (iii) M/s. Hindustan ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lations 10(o) of CBLR, 2018 on the ground that the appellant had given their Nerul address while extending their license to Mumbai, it is submitted that this allegation is factually wrong. This address is the address of their Power of Attorney Shri R. Kannan Pillai. No benefit is gained by the appellant by not disclosing the Ghatkopar address of Shri Dinesh Pratap Rai Mehta and that no prejudice is caused to Revenue on this ground. Shri R. Kannan Pillai is the G-card holder and the power of Attorney of the appellant, which is allowed by Customs law. His address is Nerul address and is not fictitious or fake address. The said G-card holder is very much available in the address, which is not disputed by the department. Thus, there is no violation of Regulations 10(a), 10(n) and 10(o) of CBLR, 2018. He prayed that the penalty imposed may be set aside. 5. The learned Authorised Representative Shri M. Jagan Babu appeared and argued for the department. He supported the findings in the impugned order. After investigation conducted by department, it is brought to light that M/s. U.V. Infotech, who is the importer/IEC holder, is not the owner of the goods. He has lend the IEC to another fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oth sides. 7. The regulations, which are alleged to be violated under 10(a), 10(n) and 10(o) of the CBLR, 2018 have already been reproduced in para 2 above. 7.1 The foremost allegation of the department is that the appellant did not collect the KYC directly from the IEC holder but had collected it only from Shri Dhurv Bhavsar and that if appellant had collected it directly from the IEC holder, appellant would have come to know that M/s. U.V. Infotech is not the actual owner of the goods. The goods imported are Hard Disk Drives. The old and used Hard Disk Drives after import are refurbished and sold in the market. Import of such such used goods fall under restricted category and requires license/permission for import. From the statement of Shri Dhurv Bhavsar, it is seen that he had not disclosed to the appellant that the actual owner of the goods is Shri Tanzeem Tanvir Shaikh. From the statement of Shri R. Kannan Pillai, it is seen that they were not aware that goods were used goods and filed the documents based on the declaration made under invoices. In para 10, it is stated that the appellant after receiving the KYC through Shri Dhurv Bhavsar had checked and verified previous im....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ods. We, therefore, direct respondents to release the goods within 48 hours from today." In the case of M/s. Proprietor, Carmel Exports & Imports Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Cochin reported in 2012 (276) E.L.T. 505 (Ker.,), the Hon'ble High Court held as follows:- "5. Notwithstanding the fact that the appellant gave Exhibit P3 letter dated 18-5-2011 referred to earlier, the respondents did neither release the goods as requested by him in the abovementioned letter, nor assess the goods for customs and clear the goods for home consumption. Therefore, the respondents approached this Court by way of a Writ Petition, from out of which the instant appeal arises. The prayers in the Writ Petition read as follows : "(i) Issue a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2 to release the goods which are covered through Bill of Entry No. 3302152 dated 25-4-2011 excluding the items mentioned in Ext. P2. (ii) Issue a writ declaring that there is no justification in delaying the processing of the papers after the examination and completing the assessment to enable the petitioner to release the goods which are not covered in Ext. P2. (iii) Issue a writ order or direction command....