9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 248X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5676224 dated 07/01/2012 was detected by the Customs (Preventive) staff. The said consignment was inspected at JNPT, Nhava Sheva and was found to be declared to contain 5700 Kgs of Refrigerant Gas (HCFC R-404A). The samples of the consignment was drawn and got tested and as per the test report dated 27/01/2012. The gas was found to be 100% HCFC R-22 instead of the declared gas of HCFC R-404A. The appellant was the CHA who filed the bill of entry. A statement of the appellant was recorded on 08/02/2012 and in the statement of the partner of the appellant firm submitted that they have filed the bills of entry based on the import documents furnished by the importer and also on the basis of the classification of the imported goods given in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... documents such as commercial invoice and the licence issued by the DGFT for the import of the goods. Based on these details, he has failed the bill of entry and there is no malafide intention on the part of the CHA to evade or avoid any payment of duty. Even in the statement recorded by the investigating authority. The appellant has stated these facts. In the absence of any malafide intention and in the absence of any knowledge on the part of the CHA about the misdeclaration by the importer, the question of suspending the CHA licence does not arise. The Hon'ble High of Bombay in the case of National Shipping Agency reported in 2008 (226) ELT 46 (Bom) held that power of suspension is an emergent power to be used in those cases where it is r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... scription of the goods given in the commercial invoice issued by the foreign supplier and also in terms of the licence issued by the DGFT, New Delhi. If that be so, we do not understand what crime, the appellant CHA has committed. If the goods are found to be different from those what has been declared in the bill of entry, the department can proceed against the importer and not against eh CHA who acts based on the documentary evidence submitted by the importer. Secondly, we find that there is no proximity between the action of suspension and the act of filing the bill of entry. The bill of entry was filed in January 2012 and the test report indicating that the goods imported were different from those given in the import documents was also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
