2026 (4) TMI 1683

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ls, resins, varnishes, lacquers. Investigations and searches were conducted at various places including the residence and office of Lalit Mange [the appellant] Director of M/s. Durga Clearing Pvt. Ltd. Various statements were also recorded. On conclusion of the investigation, a show cause notice was issued to M/s. Clear & Opaque and their partners Pratik Mehta and Faiyz Ahmed Shaikh, M/s. Reds & Blues through proprietor Shri Obaidur Rehman Sheikh. The show cause notice was also issued proposing to impose penalty on the appellant, Director of the Customs Broker. The proposals in the show cause notice were confirmed by order-in-original dated 12.05.2016. It is reported that the other noticees have settled their case before the Settlement Comm....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... against the Customs Broker. As regards the transportation services provided by the appellant through his another firm as he had no knowledge of undervaluation, the activity of transportation of goods and delivery at the godown of Pratik Mehta, instead of the premises of the importer does not render the goods in itself liable for confiscation. More so, when the charge of undervaluation itself is held to be not proved, the goods cannot be held to be prohibited goods under Section 111(d) of the Act. In this regard, learned counsel relies on the decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of Proprietor Carmel Exports and Imports vs. Commissioner of Customs, Cochin [2012 (276) ELT 505 (Ker.)] Learned counsel, therefore, submitted that the fin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ing or discussion given by the Commissioner to uphold the contentions of the show cause notice and to come to a conclusion that the appellant has rendered himself liable for penalty. 6. We find that this Bench dealing with the case against the Customs Broker found as follows: * The Commissioner of Customs had come to the conclusion that the various statements recorded during investigation in terms of the legal provisions of Section 108 of the Act which have been used as evidence against the appellant. * Customs Broker had declared the description of the imported goods and values in various Bills of Entry for the aforesaid import as given in the invoices supplied. The appellants were not aware of the undervaluation of th....