TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 20
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nder a Notification dated 30.06.2017. 3. However, a show cause notice dated 12.12.2022 was issued to the importer under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 requiring the importer to show cause as to why the benefit of the exemption claimed under the Notification dated 30.06.2017 may not be denied and the classification of the goods from CTSH 9405 40 may not be rejected and re-classified under CTSH 9405 10. 4. The appellant was also a noticee along with the importer in the aforesaid show cause notice. 5. This show cause notice was adjudicated by an order dated 08.12.2023 against which, both the importer and the appellant, have filed appeals which are said to be pending before the Tribunal. 6. After passing of the aforesaid order dated 08.12.2023, a show cause notice dated 30.04.2024 was issued to the appellant under the provisions of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations 2013/2018 alleging violation of the provisions of regulations 11(d) and 11(e)/ 10(d) and 10(e) of the aforesaid Regulations. 7. The appellant submitted a reply to the show cause notice and inter alia stated that earlier the appellant had also filed two Bills of Entries on 16.12.2017 and 18.12.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er CTH 94054090 giving the benefit of impugned exemption notification 50/2017. Also the Department sanctioned the refund claim in respect these two B/Es. These facts are not in dispute. After this only next B/Es were filed under CTH 94054090. Hence, in no way any connivance of CB can be blamed. The department was well aware of the facts as B/Es were re-assessed (in respect of CTH) by the department giving the benefit of impugned exemption notification 50/2017. 10.6.3 The Noticee/CB, further submitted during PH that the importer had misled the customs broker into believing the incorrect declaration of impugned goods. Additionally, the Noticee/CB also submitted during PH that there was no evidence of violation of Regulations 11(d) & 11(e) of CBLR, 2013 read with Regulations 10(d) and 10(e) of CBLR, 2018 and that they cannot be penalised for any violation committed by the importer without their knowledge. 11. After going through the facts of the case, the submissions made by the Noticee/ CB and various case laws cited, I am of the opinion that the Noticee/CB was misled into believing the incorrect declaration of impugned goods by the importer. Further, the connivance....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he benefit of impugned exemption notification 50/2017. However, I don't agree with the findings of the Inquiry Officer to the extent that the Custom Broker has not violated Regulations 11(d) and 11(e) of CBLR 2013 read with Regulation 10(d), 10(e) of CBLR 2018 respectively. When an agent represents someone, the least that is expected is that he will exercise due diligence to guide the right classification to the importer. Once this obligation is fulfilled, if the importer commits any illegality without the knowledge of the Customs Broker, the Customs Broker cannot be held responsible. In this case, it has not been proven by the Customs Broker that they advise M/s Havells India Ltd to comply with the provisions of the Custom Act. The Customs Broker/CB, itself further submitted during PH that the importer had misled the customs broker into believing the incorrect declaration of impugned goods. 10.17 As narrated in the preceding paras, I find that the Customs Broker failed to advise his client to comply with the provisions of the Act and the rules and regulations thereof, and they did not bring to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner/ Assistant Commissioner of Customs re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....visions of Regulations 10(d) and 10(e)/ 11(d) and 11 (e) and so it was incumbent upon the Commissioner, if he was to take a different view, to specifically state why he was not agreeing with the views expressed by the Inquiry Officer and provide an opportunity to the appellant to submit a reply. This was necessary to ensure compliance of the principles of natural justice. However, the Commissioner did not apprise the appellant and straight away held that the appellant had violated the aforesaid regulations. Learned counsel also submitted that the Commissioner completely failed to examine that portion of the report submitted by the Inquiry Officer that refers to the earlier two Bills of Entry in which refund had been granted to the appellant. Learned counsel pointed out that as the department itself had reassessed the earlier two Bills of Entry under CTSH 9405 40, the importer and the appellant were justified in filing subsequent Bills of Entry under the same CTSH. The submission, therefore, is that non-consideration of the relevant portion of the report submitted by the Inquiry Officer has vitiated the order because that was an important aspect which persuaded the inquiry officer t....