9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 782X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. - Custom Appeal No. 50543 of 2019 - Final Order No. 50868/2020 - Dated:- 15-10-2020 - MR. ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR. C.L MAHAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Prasant, Advocate - for the appellant Shri Sunil Kumar, AR - for the respondent ORDER This appeal is filed by CHA - RVL Logistics (I) Pvt. Ltd. whereby the impugned order-in-original penalty of ₹ 50,000/- have been imposed under Regulation 20(7) and 22 of CBLR, 2013 for the alleged act of omission and commission. Further the proposal to revoke the custom broker licence was dropped. 2. RVL Logistics (I) Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the appellant or CB) are holding CB License No. R-54/DEL/CUS/2007 valid up to 31.12.2027 issued by New Delhi Customs Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cro SD Cards 128 was Zero Free space and Zero used space . The print out was taken from the EDI system which revealed that M/s AAA Impex Services has re-exported 04 consignments of Micro SD Cards 128 in the past also. These re-exported Micro SD Cards 128 were earlier imported and kept in the Bonded Warehouse at CWC, Vashi. 6. It further appeared that the consignments were declared as of Indian origin in the shipping bill and of UAE origin in the bill of entry, whereas the marking on the goods suggested that the goods were of Taiwan origin. Thus, it appeared that there is mis-declaration both at the time of import and again at the time of export as regards description, country of origin and value. 7. Following investigation, show cause notice was issued to the importer M/s AAA Impex Services and others dated 11 March, 2015 proposing to hold the goods attempted to be re-exported by resorting to mis-declaration with total FOB value of ₹ 4,37,05,394/- liable to confiscation under Section 113 (h) (i) of the Customs Act with further proposal to notionally confiscate the previous re-exports covered under the four shipping bills dated 15 June to 18 July, 2013 having total FO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to ascertain the correctness of information which they imparted to their client with reference to the work related to M/s AAA Impex Services and further they have not observed KYC norms with respect to their client. Accordingly, enquiry officer Ms. Anamika Singh, Deputy Commissioner of Customs was directed to enquire and submit report and further it was proposed for the alleged violation of Regulation 11(e) and (n) of CBLR, 2013, as to why not CBLR licence be not revoked and part or the whole of the security deposit be not forfeited with further proposal to impose penalty under Regulation 20(7) read with Regulation 22 of CBLR, 2013. 11. The appellant appeared before the enquiry officer and contested the allegations. However, the enquiry officer recommended for further action in the matter, as it appeared that the appellant have contravened the provisions of Regulation 11(e) and (n) of CBLR, 2013 vide enquiry report dated 10.8.2018. 12. Vide the impugned order, the adjudicating authority on contest, the learned Commissioner was pleased to impose penalty under Regulation 18 read with Regulation 20(7) and 22 of CBLR, 2013, dropping the proposal of revocation and forfeiture of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntic documents, data or information. Learned Counsel urges that there is no dispute as regards identity of the importer, correctness of their IEC number. Further, there is no case of dubious antecedents of the client - M/s AAA Impex Services. The appellant have relied upon the IEC number and other KYC documents received by them through the reliable intermediary M/s Radiant Maritime India Pvt. Ltd. Further the appellant CB had procured and furnished the requisite documents like KYC details in the prescribed format, authorisation letter, self attested copy of IEC, self attested PAN, letter of registration with Sahar Customs, Bank AD code letter, bank statement copy and VAT registration copy, which are our record. The learned Commissioner in the impugned order have acknowledged the identity of the client of the appellant, correctness of IEC number and obtaining of KYC documents. There is no lapse pointed out as regards the identity and antecedent of the client and functioning at their declared address. Further from the very beginning of the enquiry by the customs department the partner of the importer - M/s AAA Impex Services have participated in the investigation and also in the adju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 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, we hold that the charge under Regulation 11(n) is not established. As regards the charge under Regulation 11(e), we find 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, we find 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. 19. Accordingly, we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order. The appellant is entitled to consequential benefit in accordance with law. (Pronounced in Court on 15.10.2020) - - TaxTMI - TMI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
