9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 531X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... other allied Acts as mentioned in preceding paras and thereby making all the import consignments liable for confiscation on this count under Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962. Valuation of the import consignments of MPOS/POS - HELD THAT:- The per unit price declared under various Bills of Entry have varied between U.S. $ 97 per unit to as low as U.S. $ 1.45 per unit for D-180 Model of MPOS. It has been established by the investigations that a Master Distribution Agreement has been signed by the appellant importer and its Executive Director Ms. Latha Priyadarshini with Pax Technology Ltd. Hongkong on 1 November 2014. On perusal of Appendix A of the master distributor agreement it reflects that the price of hardware of various models of the MPOS and POS have been provided by the Hongkong based company and it has very specially been provided that apart from the hardware price the licence fee for software for D series equipments of MPOS will be U.S. $ 45 per unit, for S series the licence fee was fixed at U.S. $ 60 per unit and for R series it was fixed at U.S. $ 40 per unit. This very fact indicates that the importing firm and its Executive Director were fully aware abou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsultant, and individuals un-authorizedly engaged in customs clearance work. These appeals have arisen out of a common order-in-original No. 03/2017-18/V.S./COMMR (IMPORT) read with Corrigendum dated 20/07/2018 passed the Commissioner of Customs, ACC (Import), New Custom House, New Delhi. The status of the Appellants and the corresponding duty or/and penal liability confirmed against them by the impugned order has been tabulated hereunder:- Sr. No. Appeal No. Appellant Status Duty (Rs.) Penalty (Rs.) 1. C/53447/2018 Pax Technologies Pvt Ltd Importer 1,85,09,843/- 3 , 76 ,49,777/- 2. C/53448/2018 Latha Priyadarshini Importer NIL ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Prompt Air Sea Cargo Pvt Ltd CHA firm NIL 28,46,000/- 13. C/53689/2 018 Kamal Kumar Sukhramani CHA Representative NIL 10,46,000/- 14. C/54011/2018 Shri Rajinder Madhok Consultant NIL 7,00000/- 15. C/54040/2018 Kishan Singh Dhapa CHA Representative NIL 6,30,000/- 16. C/54041/2018 Exim Cargo Services CHA firm NIL 6,30,000/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The importer Appellant wrongly described the dummy or parts of debit / credit device with intent to undervalue the goods and to avoid BIS certification and ETA from WPC. 4. The Bill of Entry-wise violations i.e. undervaluation, non-inclusion of transfer/licence fee and non-submission of BIS and ETA/WPC licence in respect of all the 14 Bill of Entry are summarized in the table below: S. No. B/E No. B/E Date Name of CHA Violations in terms of non submission of BIS certification / ETA Certificate from WPC / undervaluation / using forged invoices/mi-classification / mis-declaration 1 5994463 02.07.14 Chinta Haran Ojha Non submission of BIS / ETA from WPC 2 5994464 02.07.14 Chinta Haran Ojha No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3239991 13.11.15 Rubal Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Non submission of BIS / ETA from WPC, mis-classification, mis-declaration of goods as D 180 (D 180 pinpad is used to connect with the laptop to do the transaction connectivity via USB port only) and non-inclusion of the value of software in the assessable value of goods. 10 3346966 23.11.15 Exim Cargo Service Non submission of BIS / ETA from WPC, mis-classification, mis-declaration of goods as paper for printing in payment debit/credit device and Terminal (parts of payment debit/credit device), forgery of invoice, undervaluation and non-inclusion of the value of software in the assessable value of goods. 11 3526607 09.12.15 Prompt Air Sea Cargo Non submission of BIS / ETA from WPC, mis-classification, mis-declar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... well as other facts of the imports. 6. The Department has alleged that importer appellant indulged in duty evasion by fraud and forgery. Syndicate of S/Shri Randhir Singh, Sanjay Kataria, Sushil Kumar Mishra and Rajendar alias Raju has un-authorizedly handled import documents and in the process has indulged in using/preparing forged/fake documents based on which goods were cleared without payment of appropriate duty. 7. The authorized CHAs (firms and their representatives) failed to verify the genuineness of the importer, correctness of the documents on the basis of which clearances were sought and also to guide the importer about the statutory requirements especially certification from BIS and WPC (in this case). In order to get more business of clearance of import consignments they undermined the provisions of law. Some of the CHAs and their representatives deposited assessed customs duty from their own account and charged the same amount or more from the importer. In some of the cases it has been found by the Department that the CHAs were aware that the fake/forged documents were submitted for clearance of import consignment and thus as per depart ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndow they were using for their computers; that except first three consignment, goods imported were hardware only and the value after volume discount was declared as transaction value in the invoice for duty payment; that Sanjay Kataria and his associates mis-declared the transaction value lesser than the invoice value without any knowledge or approval of the Appellants; and finally that they remitted the price at the values indicated in the respective invoices issued by overseas supplier and paid duty to Sanjay Kataria and associates calculated at the actual invoice value . (iii) Mis-classification of goods: That though the classification entered in the Bills of Entry by the respective CHAs was also not applicable to the goods, the Learned Commissioner also erred in confirming classification of subject goods under CTH 8471 holding the devices are Automatic Data Processing Machines and that classification adopted by the Learned Commissioner was not in conformity with the classification adopted by other customs formations in respect of identical goods; and finally that the impugned goods are classifiable under CTI 84705010 as cash register for which they relied u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... again without filing appeal; that there is no evidence on record to establish that the Appellants had prior knowledge that the impugned goods were mis-declared/undervalued; that the true declaration with regard to description and value of the imported goods has to be given by the importer and not by the CHA; that the bills of entry were prepared and filed by them based on the documents supplied by the importers; that there was no positive evidence on record to show any mala fide intention on the part of them or that they were an accomplice or abettor in the offence of mis-declaration, mis-classification and under invoicing of the goods with an intent to evade customs duty; that in the instant case there is not any evidence to indicate that the they had any prior knowledge about the violation of any provisions of the law, which would have rendered the goods liable to confiscation; that the importer did not implicate them in statement; that they scrupulously followed the KYC norms and other requirements as expected of them; Invocation of Section 112,114A or 114AA is not legally sustainable; that no separate penalty is imposable on them when penalty has already been imposed on the pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for confiscation; that he cannot be penalized for wrongdoings of importers in absence of mens rea on his behalf; that he tendered only his opinion in capacity of a consultant; that no positive evidence was adduced against him by the Department on the issue of abetment/collusion; and finally that no penalty can be imposed on Middle man/Facilitator/ Coordinator invoking Sections 112,114A or 114AA. 10. Summary of arguments on behalf of the Revenue: The Departmental Representative (DR), at the outset, contended that this is a case wherein forgery/fraud has been perpetrated on revenue by the importer, its executive, clearing agents and some other persons with an intent to evade customs duty. The learned Departmental Representative impressed upon as follows : (i) It is contended that it is a fraud in law if a party makes a presentations, which he knows to be false, and injury ensues therefrom although the motive from which the representations proceeded may not have been bad. It is also well settled that misrepresentation itself amounts to fraud. A fraudulent misrepresentation is called deceit and consists in leading a man into damage by wilfully or reckl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... degree of solemnity. 11. Thus it has been contended by learned Departmental Representative that all the appeals in this case merit dismissal in view of the proven fact that all the relevant persons/firms mis-declared the description and value of the goods with an intention to evade customs duty and to circumvent the provisions of import export policy of India and therefore the impugned order-in-original does not deserve any interference. The learned Departmental Representative has made following submission on the individual role played by various persons/firms. (A) On the Appellant- Importer (i) Mis-declaration of description of goods: The goods covered by 2 live Bill of Entry were attempted to be cleared on the strength of forged invoices shown to be issued by M/s Wang Technologies Limited, whereas the two consignments were shipped by M/s Pax Technology Limited, Hong Kong; that mis-declaration about supplier of the goods was resorted to circumvent registration of import in Special Valuation Branch (SVB) and avoid verification to the effect whether the buyer and supplier were related party, and if so, whether the relations ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tively on account of Licence Fee; that the director of the appellant firm categorically admitted that the Software Licence was an integral part of these devices without which POS machines could not be operated; that she had also agreed that she paid the Licence Fee to M/s PAX, Hongkong once the customer/bank injected the licence key into the device and that that the value of those devices was a total of the value of devices plus the value of software licence fee; that it was also admitted fact that the Software Licence Fee was an integral part of the hardware imported by the Appellant and they were mandatorily required to pay the Licence Fee to the overseas supplier; that it was categorically admitted that the licence fee was required to be paid to the overseas supplier to have Euro Master Visa encryption, which was mandatory for the devices; that the Software Licence was an integral part of the devices, without which the MPOS machines could not be operated; that according to Agreement the software was not present at the time of import of goods and the key was injected by the end customer/banks but the Appellant were paying the licence fee to M/s Pax Technology Ltd., Hongkong once ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tariff classification . (iv) Confiscation and Penalty: That the goods in question were Mobile Point of Sale Devices (MPOS), and the clearance of which was subject to production of Registration Certificate from the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) and Equipment Type Approval (ETA) from Wireless Planning Coordination (WPC), which the Appellant-Importer neither submitted at the time of filing Bill of Entry, nor have applied to the same with the concerned Departments and did not possess the same at the time of Import. That as per evidences placed on record, it is proven that the Appellants were well aware about the mandatory requirements of WPC and BIS certification as early as in July, 2014 when one consignment covered under Bill of Entry No. 6221058 dated 24.07.2014 pertaining to M/s Pax Technologies Pvt. Ltd. was not allowed clearance by the Deputy Commissioner for want of WPC and SVB order; That rather than obtaining the mandatory statutory certification from WPC and BIS, the Appellants indulged themselves to seek clearance of consignments through unscrupulous persons, who not only forged the documents but also resorted to mis-declaration before Customs to s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eant for exhibition purpose only and also gave an undertaking on ₹ 50 Indian Non-Judicial stamp paper duly notarized that the same would be re-exported within thirty days and a sample each of D-200 and SP-30 would be submitted for BIS WPC for certification/ type approval, however, afterwards the clearance of this consignment covered under Bill of Entry No. 7817932 dated 26.12.2014 was secured by mis-representing the facts as during the course of investigation the Appellants did not submit anything to the effect that the goods cleared under Bill of Entry No. 7817932 dated 26.12.2014 had been re-exported or that BIS WPC certification for the imported goods were obtained by them; that this way the Appellants also violated the undertaking executed by them; that the goods covered by many Bills of Entry were allowed clearance by the EDI System under RMS where the consignments were neither subjected to assessment nor any examination thereof was conducted by the Customs; that the Appellants had also rendered themselves liable to penalty under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 to the extent that they did not pay appropriate Customs duty and they knowingly and consciously made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 180 Terminals; that they didn t guide/advise the importer about the mandatory requirement for importation of the impugned goods of which name and description could have alerted them to seek more information for the purpose of classification, importability and duty incidence ; that the documentary description of impugned goods itself suggested to be operatable on GPRS, they could have asked the details/specification of the goods and in case of any difficulty, they had option to bring about the matter to the knowledge of department; they chose otherwise and secured clearance of the subject consignment without BIS and WPC certification; that they were supposed to be well aware about the statutory obligations required to be fulfilled for the imported goods; that in respect of some consignment the Appellant- CHA were well aware about the fact and had admitted during the investigations that the original invoice of the consignment showed that the supplier was M/s Pax Technology Ltd., Hongkong and buyer was M/s Pax Technologies Pvt. Ltd. whereas the Bills of Entry were filed against the revised invoice on the basis of High Sea Sale agreement to circumvent the related party issue in consult ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lty imposed on CHA in similar circumstances was upheld. Further, DR placed reliance on the decision in Noble Agency v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai [2002 (142) E.L.T. 84 (Tri. - Mumbai)] wherein a Division Bench of the CEGAT, West Zonal Bench, and Mumbai has observed:- The CHA occupies a very important position in the Customs House. The Customs procedures are complicated. The importers have to deal with a multiplicity of agencies viz. carriers, custodians like BPT as well as the Customs. The importer would find it impossible to clear his goods through these agencies without wasting valuable energy and time. The CHA is supposed to safeguard the interests of both the importers and the Customs. A lot of trust is kept in CHA by the importers/exporters as well as by the Government Agencies. To ensure appropriate discharge of such trust, the relevant regulations are framed. Regulation 14 of the CHA Licensing Regulations lists out obligations of the CHA. Any contravention of such obligations even without intent would be sufficient to invite upon the CHA the punishment listed in the Regulations.... It would be pertinent to mention that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tment. There are enough evidences to establish that the Appellant was intentionally and purposely associated himself with the impugned goods in the greed of financial benefits, which he knew were liable for confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962; that by his above-mentioned act of omission and commission, the Appellant have rendered the impugned goods liable for confiscation under Sections 111(d) (m) of the Customs Act, 1962 and also rendered himself liable to penalty under Sections 112 and Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. (D) Appellant- Freight Forwarder : That the Appellant Shri Kuldeep Singh was a freight forwarder and he took the work related to consignment covered under Bill of Entry No. 3239991 dated 13.11.2015 on turnkey basis and assigned the work of the customs clearance to the CHA firm M/s Rubal Logistics on the basis of the documents provided by the appellant importer; that the Appellant forwarded all the documents related to the import of the goods viz. D 180 Terminals to the CHA firm M/s Rubal Logistic Pvt. Ltd. as per the direction of Ms. Latha without going through the veracity and genuineness of the import documents o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shini to circumvent related party transaction valuation of the impugned goods imported vide Bill of Entry No. 7817932 dated 26.12.2014. The consignment was thus mis-declared to its value, and the requirement BIS and WPC certification. He used his expertise to circumvent the provisions related to assessment and clearance of imported goods ; that by his above-mentioned act of omission and commission, the Appellant rendered the impugned goods liable for confiscation under Sections 111(d) (m) of the Customs Act, 1962 and rendered himself liable to penalty under Section 112 and Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. 12. We have considered rival submissions in detail as well as the record of the appeal. It is a matter of record that the appellant namely M/s Pax Technologies Pvt. Ltd. has imported consignments of Mobile Point of Sale (MPOS) Devices under various Bills of entry, the detail of 12 Bills of Entries are given below :- S. No. B/E No. B/E Date % of exam prescribed Description of goods as per B/E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. 7817932 26/12/ 2014 10 D-200 Terminal (Mobile payment terminal dummy) sample SP-30 Terminal (Mobile payment terminal dummy) sample 90230090 90230090 4 2 20 1 5 R.U. Imports Exports Pvt. Ltd. 5. 2094937 31/07/ 2015 RMS S-90 48237090 200 8.5 Exim Cargo Service 6. 2121203 03/08/ 2015 RMS Paper Roll D-180 MPOS Terminal (Parts of payment Debit/ Credit Device) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l (Part of payment Debit/ Credit Device) 48237090 48237090 1000 Rolls 2000 pcs. .25 1.5 Prompt Air Sea Cargo Pvt. Ltd. 12. 3650483 19/12/ 2015 RMS Paper for printing in payment Debit/ Credit Device D-180 Terminal (Part of payment Debit/ Credit Device) 48237090 48237090 1000 Rolls 4600 pcs. .23 1.45 Prompt Air Sea Cargo Pvt. Ltd. Apart from these 12 Bills of entry the appellant has imported two more consignments covered by Bill of Entry No. 3851878 dated 8 January 2016 and Bill of Entry No. 3851698 also dated 08 January 2016. 13. It is also a matter of record that two Bills ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is-declared the basic details of the import consignments including the description of the import consignments. 14. A glance at the table mentioned in the preceding para No. 11 reveals that the MPOS machines were mis-declared as paper rolls/bar code reader and in some of the Bills of Entry the description of import consignment has been given as S-90 model and paper with printing and payment debit/credit device . We find that a Master Distributor Agreement has been signed between M/s Pax Technologies, Hongkong and M/s Pax Technologies, India which makes the Indian arm a sole master distributor of Hongkong based companies products namely various models of Mobile Point of Sale/Point of Sale devices . The master distributor agreement has an Appendix I which provides the transfer prices of various models of MPOS alongwith the prices of software, which is essential component for functioning of the MPOS devices. When the prices as given in the Appendix A to the master distributor agreement are compared with the declared import prices of the import consignments, we find that the declared prices of imported consignments of the various models of MPOS/POS have drastically been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 readwith import-export policy of relevant time which required that consignment of MPOS/POS a No Objection Certificate in the form of ETA (Equipment Type Approval) from the WPC Wing of Department of Telecommunication and registration with Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) and above all to evade customs duty. 16. Now, we undertake to analyze the findings given in the impugned order-in-original regarding mis-classification of import consignment under the Customs Tariff Act 1975 with an intend to evade the customs duty. We find that the import consignments of MPOS/POS have been classified as follows : In 3 Bills of Entry having No. 5994463 dated 02/07/2014, 5994464 dated 04/07/2014 and 6221058 dated 24/07/2014, the import consignments of MPOS have been described and classified as follows : S-90 GPRS + ID BARCODE TERMINAL CTH 84709010 We find that Customs Tariff Heading 8470 primarily covers goods such as calculating machines and pocket size data recording device, cash registers etc., while the classification of the subject MPOS machines have been confirmed by the Adjudicating Authori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e declared under various Bills of Entry have varied between U.S. $ 97 per unit to as low as U.S. $ 1.45 per unit for D-180 Model of MPOS. It has been established by the investigations that a Master Distribution Agreement has been signed by the appellant importer and its Executive Director Ms. Latha Priyadarshini with Pax Technology Ltd. Hongkong on 1 November 2014. Some of the relevant paras of agreement read as follow : Appendix A shows current transfer prices agreed between the company and the master distributor of the company main products. The transfer prices may change with time in line with specific business deals or due to situation of the competitive nature. The commission due to the master distributor is defined as the % specified in Appendix A, calculated on the difference between the price paid to the company by the customers and the transfer price applied by the company to the master distributor . 20. On perusal of Appendix A of the master distributor agreement it reflects that the price of hardware of various models of the MPOS and POS have been provided by the Hongkong based company and it has very specially been provided that apart ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o not find any illegality in the conclusions reached in the impugned order-in-original regarding confiscation of the import consignments, confiscation of customs duty and with regard to imposition of penalty under various Sections of the Customs Act on the appellant importer and its Director Mrs. Latha Priyadarshini. 22. Coming to the role of various Customs House Clearing Agents, we find it appropriate to mention before analyzing the role of individual CHA firms and persons, that every Customs House Agent plays a crucial role in ensuring compliance of provisions of Customs Act as well as various other allied laws of the country with regard to import/export of goods. They are also required to advice and assist the importers and exporters so that correct compliance of the provisions of statutes as well as correct payment of customs duty is ensured. In the present case, we find that the customs house agents (clearing agents) have not done their work in the spirit in which they have been appointed to work as the Customs House Agents. We find that appellants M/s Chinta Haran Ojha Customs House Agent and Shri Rakesh Kumar G Card Holder of same firm have filed two Bill ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ratus and model designated for demonstration purposes or exhibition, education purpose and unsuitable for its other uses. It is matter of record that during course of examination of subject consignment, the goods were found as not dummy or samples but the same were fully functional MPOS. It is therefore clear that goods were classified by Shri Maikhuri and the importing firm without going into detail about their true nature by referring to the relevant catalogue or product literature and without any documentary evidences. The CHA classified the goods as of dummy nature for exhibition/demonstration purpose to evade customs duty and other provisions of import-export policy. It has also come out from the investigations that the CHA firm and its Director have not interacted with the importer while taking the work of clearance work of the import consignment but all the documents such as invoice, airway bill etc. were taken from Shri Rajinder Madhok and thus have not shown due diligence in undertaking the work of clearance and have become part of the conspiracy to get the MPOS devices cleared without following the due requirements of Customs Act and Import-export policy. The investigatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Decla red value (USD) per unit Name of CHA/ CB (M/s) 1. 2094937 31/07/ 2015 RMS S-90 48237090 200 8.5 Exim Cargo Service 2. 2121203 03/08/ 2015 RMS Paper Roll D-180 MPOS Terminal (Parts of payment Debit/ Credit Device) 48237090 48237090 1000 Rolls 1000 Rolls .25 2.25 Exim Cargo Service 3. 2763917 30/09/ 2015 RMS Paper Roll Barcode Reader S-90 48 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same under Chapter sub-Heading 48237090 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1986. It is beyond our imagination that any prudent person can decide the classification of an imported item only on the description as S-90 . This clearly indicates that the clearing firm and its proprietor Shri Kishan Singh Dhapa and G Card Holder Shri Rajender Prasad have acted with ulterior motives and have misclassified the sophisticated electronic equipments, such as, MPOS under the product classification of the paper and paper products and the value of such sophisticated items has surprisingly been mis-declared as low as U.S. $ 0.25 per unit under Bill of Entry No. 2121203 dated 03/08/2015. This could not have been done without CHA firms and its workers being part of a conspiracy to evade the customs duty but also to circumvent the provisions of the Export Import Policy which included the BIS and WP C certification. 26. We are in full agreement with the findings of the Original Adjudicating Authority and, therefore, uphold the imposition of penalty under various sections of the Customs Act on CHA firm M/s Exim Cargo services, Shri Kishan Singh Dhapa and Rajindra Prasad. We also recommend t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity. Therefore, it is not necessary to interfere with the findings of the Authority. 28. Now, coming to the appellant namely Shri Kamal Kumar Sukhramani and M/s Prompt Air Sea Cargo Pvt. Ltd. a Customs House Agent (Customs broker), we find that following two Bills of Entries have been filed by appellant M/s Prompt Air Sea Cargo Pvt. Ltd. :- S. No. B/E No. B/E Date % of exam prescribed Description of goods as per B/E Chapter Heading as per B/E Qty. Impor ted Decla red value (USD) per unit Name of CHA/ CB (M/s) 11. 3526607 09/12/ 2015 RMS Paper for printing in payment Debit/ Credit Device D-180 Terminal (Part of payment Debit/ Credit Device) 48237090 48237090 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave connived with the importer and its Director for resorting to such mis-declaration of description and value of the import consignments of MPOS and have thus evaded customs duty and violated the provisions of Allied Acts. Here also, we are in agreement with the findings of the learned Adjudicating Authority and refrain from interfering with the same. 30. Now coming to appeals filed by Shri Rajinder Madhok Consultant, Shri Kuldeep Singh and Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra, it is an admitted fact that Shri Rajinder Madhok worked as a consultant on the issues pertaining to special valuation branch. He was fully aware that the goods were being imported by the importer appellant from their related firm based in Hongkong and only for the monetary gains he had advised Ms. Latha Priyadarshini as to how to circumvent the provisions of Customs and Allied Acts with regard to Bill of Entry No. 7817932 dated 26/12/2014. He played a crucial role in mis-declaring the goods as the dummy equipments just to bye-pass the provisions of certification required under BIS and WPC. Thus here also, we do not find any legal infirmity in the findings of the Adjudicating Authority. So ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the case at hand, as it has come out in the preceding paras, that the importer appellant and various clearing agent appellants and persons were consciously part of the entire conspiracy of willful mis-declarations of the import consignments. These decisions would not help the appellant. 33. In view of the entire above discussions, we also find it appropriate to ask the Chief Commissioner of Customs to enquire about the systemic failure with regard to clearances of Mobile Point of Sale equipments under various Bills of Entry, as mentioned in the preceding paras. We find that the clearing agents were aware as to the description that was to be given to a consignment to avoid examination of the cargo from the Risk Management Module (RMS). We are also surprised to note that in some of the Bills of Entry, the Risk Management Module (RMS) gave examination of the package of the cargo, but still in these cases also the consignment were cleared in spite of the huge mis-declaration with regard to its description, classification as well as the value of imported items. This indicate that there exist a deep malaise in the system of examination and clearance of the cargo. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
