9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (10) TMI 782 - AT - CustomsLevy of penalty on Customs Broker - Regulation 20(7) and 22 of CBLR, 2013 - mis-declaration both at the time of import and again at the time of export as regards description, country of origin and value - HELD THAT - The charge of violation under Regulation 11(n) as regards compliance of KYC norms is not established as admittedly the appellant have received several documents from their client viz. PAN card, KYC details in prescribed format, authorisation, self attested copy of IEC etc. which corroborate the genuineness of their client - M/s AAA Impex Services and their working at their given address. Further, there is no document which raises suspicion. Accordingly, the charge under Regulation 11(n) is not established. Charge under Regulation 11(e) - HELD THAT - There is no act of omission or commission which indicates lack of due diligence to ascertain the correctness or any information imparted by the appellant to their client with reference to the work handled by them. Further, there is no case made out of any collusion or abetment. Further, no case of any illegal gains on the part of the appellant CB is made out, indicating their collusion as alleged. Further no case is made out that the appellant CB have knowingly allowed the alleged mis-declaration by their client. It is established principle of law that mere facilitation without knowledge of consequences, would not amount to abetting an offence. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues Involved:
1. Imposition of penalty under Regulation 20(7) and 22 of CBLR, 2013. 2. Alleged violation of Regulation 11(e) and 11(n) of CBLR, 2013. 3. Mis-declaration of goods concerning description, country of origin, and value. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Imposition of penalty under Regulation 20(7) and 22 of CBLR, 2013: The appeal was filed by RVL Logistics (I) Pvt. Ltd. (the appellant) against the order imposing a penalty of ?50,000 under Regulation 20(7) and 22 of CBLR, 2013. The proposal to revoke the customs broker license was dropped. The appellant contested the findings of the enquiry officer, arguing that the penalty was not sustainable on merits. 2. Alleged violation of Regulation 11(e) and 11(n) of CBLR, 2013: The allegations included that the appellant did not exercise due diligence in discharging their obligations under Regulation 11(e) and failed to verify the antecedents and correctness of the IEC number, identity, and functioning of their client under Regulation 11(n). The enquiry officer recommended further action, but the appellant argued that they had complied with all the KYC norms and provided all necessary documents. The Tribunal found that the charge under Regulation 11(n) was not established as the appellant had received several documents corroborating the genuineness of their client. Similarly, the charge under Regulation 11(e) was not established as there was no act of omission or commission indicating a lack of due diligence. 3. Mis-declaration of goods concerning description, country of origin, and value: The appellant filed 16 bills of entry for warehousing goods on behalf of M/s AAA Impex Services. During re-export, it was found that the memory of the Micro SD Cards was "Zero Free space and Zero used space," and the goods were mis-declared concerning description, country of origin, and value. A show cause notice was issued, proposing the confiscation of goods and penalties on the appellant and its director. The appellant argued that the information filled in the clearance documents was based on the documents provided by the client, and there was no case of forgery or fraud committed by them. The Tribunal found no case of collusion or abetment by the appellant and held that mere facilitation without knowledge of consequences would not amount to abetting an offense. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order, and held that the charges under Regulation 11(e) and 11(n) were not established. The appellant was entitled to consequential benefits in accordance with the law.
|
