2026 (2) TMI 41

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Section 114(ii) and also reduced the penalty imposed on the appellant under Section 114AA to Rs. 2,00,000/- only, finding the amount of penalty incommensurate with the alleged offence. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant had filed certain shipping bills on behalf of the exporter M/s Vijay International, Pune. The description of goods was declared as "Leather Sleeveless Jacket". During the course of examination, it was observed that jackets were small in size. It was found that the jackets were made of fabric/ material which appeared to be leather and roughly stitched. The size of jackets was fit for kids. The quality of materials used in manufacturing of the goods appeared to be of inferior quality and the value declared p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nce. Feeling aggrieved from the impugned order dated 24.03.2022 passed by learned Commissioner (Appeals), present appeal has been filed by the appellant before this Tribunal. 3. Learned Consultant for the appellant submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) is a non-speaking order as it does not deal with the submissions made by the appellant before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and the appellant is not liable to any penalty under the provisions of Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. He has also submitted that the pre-requisite for invocation of Section 114AA is prior knowledge or intention. Lower authorities have not established presence of knowledge or intention on the part of appellant at a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oms House Agent to compare the invoice price with the market price of identical goods. In support of above arguments, learned Consultant for the appellant relied upon the following decisions:- (a) Brijesh International vs. Commissioner of Customs (Import & General), New Delhi, - 2017 (352) E.L.T. 229 (Tri.-Del.) (b) Commr. of Cus., Tuticorin vs. Moriks Shipping and Trading Pvt. Limited, - 2008 (227) ELT 577 (Tri.-Chennai). (c) P.P. Dutta vs. Comm. of Cus. & C. Ex., Ghaziabad - 2014 (313) E.L.T. 351 (Tri.-Del.). (d) World Cargo Movers v/s Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi, 2002 (139) E.L.T. 408 (Tri.-Del.) (e) Dipankar Sen v/s Commissioner of Customs, Kolkata, 2003 (159) E.L.T. 260 (Tri.-Kolkata)....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ients at different parts of the country and it is not mandate under the CBLR-2018 to verify the business premises physically thus he had complied with the provisions of Regulation 10(n) of the CBLR-2018. The exporter M/s. Vijay International, Pune attempted to export the goods namely 'Lather Sleeveless Jacket' which were found to be highly over-valued. The examination of goods, the market survey and other investigation in the matter clearly established the charge of over-valuation and in adjudication, the goods were found highly over-valued and held liable to confiscation under Section 113(i) of the Customs Act, 1962. Considering the appellant was the Customs Broker in this case and a Customs Broker has certain obligations under Customs Bro....