TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 300
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed 31.12.2019 issued to several parties including the importer as well as the present appellant amongst others. Based on an intelligence, as obtained by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence and forwarded to the authorities, that vessel M.V. Bos Angel (Vessel Code J8B5408, Voyage No.102018, IGM No.2210721 dated 26.11.2018) carried a consignment of 21319 MT of Nut Coke declaring the Country of Origin as Oman whereas the said cargo was actually loaded on the vessel at BIK/Iran and the actual Country of Origin thereof was Iran. It is the case of the department that such subterfuge was resorted to, to bypass the sanctions imposed by the United States of America on Iran. The records clearly indicate that the goods were consigned in favour of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....th. The appellant at the time of investigation submitted before the authorities that the importer had sent them an email concerning their appointment as Customs Broker in the matter whereafter necessary documents namely B/L, Invoice, Packing List, Country of Origin Certificate were all received by them from the importer M/s. Savoy International Pvt. Ltd. He further pointed out that both as per the Bill of Lading and Country of Origin Certificate, the load port was indicated as Khasab Port, Oman and the Country of Origin indicated as Oman. They further submitted that they were unaware and had no knowledge of the fact that the Master of the Vessel had provided a copy of the B/L and cargo manifest as BIK Port, Iran. Further, in respect of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aid decision, the Ld. Adjudicating authority had clearly indicated that the Revenue had failed to produce even a single solitary evidence to suggest that the Customs Broker had manipulated the import documents with mala fide intentions. The appellant points out that there is not a shred of evidence to seek some sort of pecuniary benefits with mala fide intentions, on part of the appellant. Least of all, no role of the appellant in the misdeclaration of the COO has been pointed out by the authorities. He had also relied upon the fact that the order of suspension of the Customs Broker Licence dated 10.01.2020 was subsequently revoked upon consideration of the reply furnished by the appellant vide Order No.KOL/CUS/AP/ADMN/20/2020 dated 21.01.2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ds. There is no shred of evidence inculpating the appellant in this regard. From the case records it is evident that the department has mechanically imposed the said penalty on the appellant since the law provided for a legal provision to do so. Penalty under section 114AA can only be imposed for use of false or incorrect material only when such person knowingly utilizes the said material. Prior knowledge of such falsification is a must to impose such penalty upon the appellant. Since there is no such piece of evidence we find absolutely no justification for imposition of penalty on the appellant in the matter. However, as regards the appellant's responsibility to ensure due diligence while discharging import-export business it is incumbent....