TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1022
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as CBLR. 2.2 M/s SNNR Private Limited filed a Bill of Entry No. 7110718 dated 06.07.2018 through Appellant for clearance of imported goods declared as 'Decorative Stoneware" under tariff sub-heading No. 69139000, at Albatoss CFS. Appellant stated that the importer was referred to them by Mr. Ravi Venkatesh Director of M/s JIT Freight Solution Pvt. Lt., 610, Pearls Omaxe Tower-I, 6th Floor, Netaji Subhash Palace, New Delhi. 2.3 The consignment of imported goods was 10% examined on first check basis by the Shed Officers, in the presence of AC (Shed) and were found "Ceramics tableware" i.e. Cups, Mugs and Bowls of Ceramics classifiable under CTH 69120010. 2.4 The Appellant had classified the goods under incorrect tariff item number 69139000 as he was aware that Anti Dumping Duty was attracted on goods falling under tariff heading Number 6911 & 6912. An enquiry to this effect was conducted for determining the correct classification of the said imported goods by SIIB at ICD Dadri, and it was found that the goods imported had been mis-declared. 2.5 On the basis of above facts & circumstances it was ample clear that they importer had wilfully suppressed the description of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....€¢ Importer agreed to pay ADD, fines and penalties, no other penalty on the Appellant is warranted. 3.3 Authorized representative for the Revenue reiterated the findings recorded in the impugned order. 4.1 I have considered the impugned order along with the submissions made in appeal and during the course of arguments. 4.2 Impugned order records the findings as follows: 6. I have carefully gone through the facts of the case and circumstances available on records, grounds of appeal and submissions made by the party during, the hearing. The dispute relates to (a) act of mis-declaration of goods (b) determination of classification, (c) imposition of penalty. I proceed to deal with the issues in same sequence. The statement of Shri Deepak, G-Card Holder of Customs Broker authorized representative of M/s Tulip Shipping Services, was recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 on 10.08.2018. "In his statement Sh. Deepak, stated that the importer was referred to them by Mr Ravi Venkatesh Director of M/s JIT freight Solution Pvt. Ltd. Perl Omaxe Tower-6 Floor, Netaji Subhash Place, New Delhi and they obtained copy of import documents from Mr. Venkatesh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....alse and incorrect material.- if a person knowingly or intentionally makes, signs or sue, or causes to be made, signed or use, any declaration, statement or documents which is false or incorrect in any material particular, in the transaction of any business for the purpose of this Act, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding five time the value of goods. It is worth mentioning that in the present case total value of Rs. 10,16,003.34 was covered under Bill of Entry No. 7110718 dated 06.07.2018. Thus I find that the adjudicating authority has rightly imposed penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- which is very small amount in comparison to five times of its value cover this bill of entry 8. The Appellant has challenged application of the penal provisions of Section 112(a) of the Act. The charges of mis-declaration of description, classification, value of goods and violation of import conditions are well established to invite confiscation in terms of section 111 (m) of the Act. The statement of the Appellant shows a guilty mind in very clear terms to demonstrate existence of contumacious conduct with an intent to evade Anti Dumping Duty. In the given facts & circumstances, I find that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... goods under 'Decorative Stone' with an intent to evade ADD on them. Therefore I am of the view that the argument that the classification of goods were done in on the basis of the invoice and country of origin certificate provided by the supplier is nothing but circumvention of facts so as to avoid invocation of Section 114AA for penalty 17. I find that in his statement, Shri Deepak G-Card Holder of the M/s Tulip Shipping Services inter alia stated that he obtained copy of import documents from Mr. Ravi Venkatesh and he did not carry out any physical verification of importer in details. He went with the suggestion of forwarder and classified the imported goods under "Decorative Stoneware" other than Porcelain or China. Shri Deepak admitted that he should have been more diligent while classifying the goods and that he was aware that anti dumping duty was attracted on goods falling under tariff headings 6911 and 6912. Thus the Customs Broker was aware about the-correct classification of goods and took out check list classifying them under tariff heading which attracted anti dumping duty but thereafter inexplicably filed the Bill of Entry going by the advice of importer-n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e suggested to the forwarding agent for classifying the same under tariff item 69139000; that basis for change in classification of imported goods was description given in the Invoice and country of origin certificate issued by the manufacturer supplier; that he accepted that Ceramic Mugs and Ceramic Bowls imported by them were rightly classifiable under tariff heading 6912 as Ceramic Tableware but by mistake they got classified under 6913; that he confirmed that their imported goods were Ceramic Mugs and Ceramic Bowl imported from China which were classifiable under tariff heading 6912 and he did not dispute its identity as Ceramic Tableware; Mr. Sahu agreed that he had been offered the option of getting imported goods tested from an NABL Laboratory to establish their identity but he had refused the offer since he had unequivocally accepted that the goods under import were "Ceramic Tableware" and attracted anti dumping duty vide Notfn No.4/2018-Customs (ADD) dated 21.02.2018 which he was prepared to pay forthwith, the mis-classification of item under import was a mistake on his parts and he was prepared to pay fine and penalty that may be imposed on his import consignment on accou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4AA or Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962. These failures are the failures as per the provisions of Custom Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018, for which penalties and action has been provided under the said regulations. Regulation 18 of the Custom Broker Licensing Regulation, 2018 provides as follows:- 18. Penalty.- (1) The Principal Commissioner or Commissioner of Customs may impose penalty not exceeding fifty thousand rupees on a Customs Broker or F card holder who contravenes any provisions of these regulations or who fails to comply with any provision of these regulations. (2) The Deputy Commissioner or an Assistant Commissioner of Customs may impose penalty not exceeding ten thousand rupees on a G card holder who contravenes any provisions of these regulations in connection with the proceedings against the Customs Broker. (3) The imposition of penalty or any action taken under these regulations shall be without prejudice to the action that may be taken against the Customs Broker or F card holder or G card holder under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962) or any other law for the time being in force. 4.8 In case of VA....