2024 (4) TMI 695

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....HALR), 1984, corresponding to Regulation (1) of CHALR, 2004 and now Regulation 7(2) of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2018. 2.2 On the basis of specific information received by Nhava Sheva Preventive Unit, Rummaging and Intelligence wing of Customs Preventive Commissionerate (NSPU) that one importer M/s Liberty Motors, Mumbai had imported automobile spare parts of foreign origin from Shanghai and they had mis-declared the same in terms of weight and value to evade customs duty, necessary enquiry was conducted. Preliminary inquiry revealed that the imported goods containing auto spare parts have arrived at GDL, JNPT CFS vide container No. SUDU-5933179 and the relevant B/E No. 983392 dated 13.07.2009 have been filed by the appellants CB declaring the assessable value of Rs.3,78,430/- and the custom duty of Rs.96,579/- was already paid by the importer M/s Liberty Motors. The said goods initially detained on 14.07.2009 and were taken up for detailed examination under panchnama proceedings by NSPU on 23.07.2009 in the presence of appellants CB's representative. The actual weighment of the goods indicated that the imported goods were having gross weight of 24010 kgs., w....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....16(1) of CBLR, 2018, for not revoking CB License of the appellants and only for partial forfeiture of the amount of security deposit of Rs.15,000/- on the appellants. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order, the appellants have preferred this appeal before the Tribunal. 3.1. Learned Advocate for the appellants contends that both the allegations of violation of Regulations 13(d), 13(e) and 13(n) of CHALR, 2004/ Regulations 10(d), 10(e) and 10(m) of CBLR, 2018 have been countered by them. In respect of Regulation 10(d), he stated that all the declarations in the B/E were made on the basis of documents given by the importers, and the appellants were neither aware of the mis-declaration of imported goods in terms of its description, value, etc. nor has the expertise or the authority to determine the correct classification or assess the value; they claimed that the appellants were no manner connected with the violations of the Customs law as the alleged non-compliance is connected with procurement of imported goods for which the appellants are not involved. He stated that any action taken by importer in respect of imported goods leading to any violation, subsequent to customs clear....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... export of goods. These are as follows : "Regulation 13 of CHALR, 2004/Regulation 10 of CBLR, 2018. Obligations of Customs Broker: - A Customs Broker shall - ... (d) advise his client to comply with the provisions of the Act and in case of non-compliance, shall bring the matter to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be; (e) exercise due diligence to ascertain the correctness of any information which he imparts to a client with reference to any work related to clearance of cargo or baggage; ... (n)/(m) ensure that he discharges his duties as Customs House Agent/ Customs Broker with utmost speed and efficiency and without avoidable/any delay;" 6.3. We find that the Commissioner of Customs had come to the conclusion that the statements recorded during the investigation from Shri Lalit Agarwal, partner of appellants CB and S/Shri Sampat Phatangare, Arjun Nishit, employees of the appellants CB, in terms of the legal provisions of Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 which have been used as evidence against the appellants to the extent of omissions and comm....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....fic information received by NSPU and further investigations carried out thereafter. Hence the appellants CB cannot be found fault for the reason that they did not advise their client importer to comply with the provisions of the Act. Further, as the purported mis-declaration of imported goods was not known to the appellants, the non-compliance by the importer in respect of imported goods could not have been brought to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (DC) or Assistant Commissioner of Customs (AC) by the appellants CB. Thus, we are of the considered view that the violation of Regulation 10(d) ibid, as concluded in the impugned order is not sustainable. 8.1 Learned Commissioner of Customs (General) had come to the conclusion that the CB had violated the provision of Regulation 10(e) ibid, on the ground that the appellants did not display meticulousness and thoroughness which was necessary when handling consignments so as to protect the interest of revenue. Further, he found that the appellants CB has displayed a casual and lackadaisical approach towards their work by carrying out the clearance work without exercising due diligence to ascertain the correctness of in....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he appellants CB. The details of Retail Sale Price (RSP) in respect of all the 89 items of imported goods had been declared in the B/E. Further, there is no case of importer or any other person having complained about the inefficiency or delay in clearance of the imported goods by the appellants CB. Therefore, the conclusion arrived at by the learned Commissioner of Customs that the appellants have failed to discharge their obligations cast on him under Regulation 10(m) ibid is factually non supported by any evidence and thus it is not legally sustainable. 10.1 We find that in respect of the obligations on the part of CB with respect of verification of genuineness of the documents the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held in the case of Kunal Travels (Cargo) Vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs (I&G), IGI Airport, New Delhi reported in 2017 (354) E.L.T. 447 (Del.), the appellants CB is not an Inspector of Customs who would have an expertise to weigh the genuineness of the transaction. The relevant portion of the said judgement is extracted below : "The CHA is not an inspector to weigh the genuineness of the transaction. It is a processing agent of documents with respect....