TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (8) TMI 18
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rt of 500 PP bags of goods declared as 'Organic Herbal Plinth Filing Termiticide'. Based on specific intelligence the goods were detained by SIIB and on examination it was found that the goods were overvalued. Samples were drawn and sent for testing. Based on the test report, it was noticed that the declared specifications were at great deviance with respect to the specifications mentioned in the tax invoice available with the shipping bills. Further the CHA had not verified the premises of the exporter or made him cooperate with the investigation. On completion of investigation, Show Cause Notice was issued to the exporter and the appellant herein. On adjudication, the adjudicating authority has under Regulation 17 of the Customs Brokers L....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s also recorded in the statement made before the Officers of SIIB. In the present case, there is not even an allegation that the appellant knew that the exporter has mis-declared the goods. Even the Customs Officers on examination of the goods found the same to be as per the declaration made in the shipping bills. The appellant had also requested for the chemical specification and advised the exporter to appear before the Officers of SIIB. However, the exporter along with the freight forwarder, who had referred the exporter to the appellant, had threatened the appellant through phone and in person at the appellant's office. The appellant had also filed a police complaint on 12.11.2019 and also filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reported in 2016 (344) ELT 602 (Tri-Del), has held that there is no legal requirement for physical verification of the importer/exporter premises. It is further submitted that the impugned order imposing penalty has been passed without jurisdiction, as the Commissioner has imposed penalty under regulation 17, whereas the power to impose penalty is contemplated only under regulation 18 of CBLR, 2018. This Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of M/s. Svarad logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs, (C/40811/2021), has held that penalty if any could have been imposed under regulation 18 and not under regulation 17. It is further submitted that the Inquiry Officer has not granted proper opportunity of personal hearing. It is s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the same. Documents required as per the KYC are basically issued by government authorities and agencies and the presumption is that the details like name, address etc. shown there in are true. e) The appellant has a branch office at Mumbai and the staff of the appellant's branch office has visited the exporter's premises and verified the functioning of the client as recorded in the statement. The Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of APS Freight & Travel Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Customs (General), New Delhi reported in 2016 (344) ELT 602 (Tri-Del), has held that there is no legal requirement for physical verification of the importer/exporter premises. f) The appellant had advised the exporter to appear before the Officers ....