9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 206X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of exporter which appellant has done in this case by verifying bank account, IEC and by obtaining proper authorization – Therefore, appellant has taken due care for knowing antecedent of exporter – Appellant was not having any knowledge that exporter was fraudulent and their shipping bill have been filed to claim undue drawback by overvalue of exported goods – In view of discussion, appellant has not violated provisions of Customs Act – Penalty imposed on appellant set aside – Decided in favour of appellant. - Appeal No. C/511/2011-CU(SM) - Final Order No. A/51212/2015-CU(SM) - Dated:- 1-4-2015 - Ashok Jindal, Member (J),J. For the Appellant : Shri Manoj Sharma, Adv. For the Respondent : Shri Davinder Singh, DR ORDER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... b-standard and highly overvalued goods under claim of undue drawback amount which appeared to be liable for confiscation under Section 113 (d) and 113 (i) of the Customs Act, 1962. 3. The adjudication took place and the penalty on the appellant is confirmed as per show cause notice of ₹ 8,82,464/- under section 114 of the Customs Act 1962. Aggrieved from the said order appellant is before me. 4. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the allegation made in the show cause notice are totally incorrect, In fact, the appellant has filed proper authorization obtained from the exporter under regulation 13 of the CHALR, 2004 and also found the genuineness of the exporter by verifying the IEC from DGFT. Further, the appellant h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ms Authorities. Therefore, he submits that penalty is rightly imposed on the appellant. 6. Heard the parties. Considered the submissions. 7. On perusal of the records I find that appellant has obtained proper authorization which is required under regulation 13 of the CHALR 2004 from the exporter, also verified the details of the exporter and also verified the IEC obtained by the exporter from DGFT. These are the three primary documents which are supposed to be verified on 1st instance while dealing with the new client. In the law it is no where required that before dealing with the new client the CHA is required to meet the client personally. But to verify the antecedents of the exporter which appellant has done in this case by verify ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
