TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 363
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tted on behalf of the appellant that in para 1.3 of the final order there is discussion with respect to main noticee only i.e. M/s DS Exports Industry. The applicant is the proprietor of Custom House Agent namely M/s Air Lift Carrier of the said main noticee. The applicant has been involved vide corrigendum dated 16.11.2023 to show cause notice dated 28.11.2022 with the proposal of imposition of penalty on the appellant as well as under Section 112 and / under Section 114 and / 114AA of Customs Act 1962. However, the order in original dated 06.03.2024 and the impugned final order dated 11.02.2025 have not considered that the entire allegation in the show cause notice were only with respect to M/s DS Export Industries (the main noticee) and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....porter. (iv) There is no authorization in favour of Appellant (v) ................................. However, it is a matter on record that the authorization dated 12.10.2021 from the importer to the applicant-appellant was enclosed along with the letter dated 04.05.2022, addressed to the Appraiser/ Proper Officer and resubmitted under additional submissions dated 22.12.2023. Hence, there is an apparent mistake on record of the impugned final order, while observing as above to be an admitted fact. Learned counsel submitted that from the admitted fact in Para 5(iii) of the impugned final order, as recorded above, there arises no question of Connivance, Collusion or any abatement between the applicant appellant and the importer. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ier considered by the original adjudicating authority. This was the case of gross overvaluation having declared value approximately of Rs.55 crores for the goods declared as garments of lower weight but imported in 40 feet container from Dubai. These parameters were the sufficient indication of lack of due diligence on part of the CHA/the applicant-appellant before filing the Bill of Entry. On examination, the goods were found to be worn clothes of very poor quality with no tags or labels. The CHA had filed Bill of Entry for the clearance of such mis-declared and grossly overvalued goods within two days of being engaged as per their own statement. These facts sufficiently reflect the connivance of the CHA with the importer who was otherwise....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e importer. Though KYC documents of importer was produced at the first available opportunity by the appellant but the appellant, as per his statement, himself was not aware as from whom those KYC documents of importer were collected. Appellant named Shri Jaswant Singh, his G-Card Holder as the person who received the KYC documents. Similar is the testimony of another G-Card Holder of the appellant, Shri Randhir Singh. As per statement of said Shri Jaswant Singh, G-Card Holder of the appellant named one Shri Nikhil Kumar to be the contact person on behalf of M/s. D.S. Export Industry as is observed in Para 7 of the impugned final order. On the contrary, the authorized representative for M/s. D.S. Export Industry had name Shri Lalit Jai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e received and that appellant nor his G-Card Holders ever ment the importer. Also as pointed out by learned Departmental Representative that goods declared as garments of lower weight but imported in 40 feet container from Dubai. The CHA had filed Bill of Entry for the clearance of such mis-declared and grossly overvalued goods within two days of being engaged as per their own statement. Para 7, 8 and 9 of the impugned final order are discussing such kind of lacuna on part of the appellant. Para 10 thereof has explained the correctness about imposition of penalty upon the appellant under Section 112(a)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962. 10. In the light of these observations, it stands clear that there is no authorization for receiving the KYC d....