9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 1740X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... em verified at the foreign exporter s end. In the case laws relied upon by the appellant the Hon ble High Court of Bombay in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (GENERAL), MUMBAI VERSUS MD. SHIPPING AGENCY [ 2014 (2) TMI 624 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] in similar circumstances, has held under Regulation 13(d) of CHALR the occasion to advice the importer would not arise because there was no occasion for the CHA to know or even suspect that the importer was not complying with the provisions of the Customs Act and / or advance license under which the goods were cleared. This is more so as delivery to a transporter for carriage of goods at the direction of the importer would not by itself resulted in non-compliance of the Customs Act. There is n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in not noticing the discrepancy in the invoice which has resulted in under valuation of the imported consignment. The Ld. Counsel submits that they have filed the documents with Customs on the basis of what was handed over to them by the importer and accordingly it is not fair to say that they have colluded with the importer in undervaluing the consignment. She relied upon the decision in the case of Dominic Co. Vs. CCE Mumbai 2013 (296) ELT 494 (Tri-Mumbai) and in the case of CCE Vs. MD Shipping Agency 2014 (299) ELT 257 (Bom.). 4. Ld. DR on the other hand, supported the order of the Commissioner. He submitted that the CHA is expected to function as the eyes and ears of the Department but have failed in this duty as held by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... occasion for the CHA to suspect that the imported zinc ingots were not being taken to the destination as declared in the advance license namely the factory at Surat in Gujarat. Further, under Regulation 13(d) of CHALR the occasion to advice the importer would not arise because there was no occasion for the CHA to know or even suspect that the importer was not complying with the provisions of the Customs Act and / or advance license under which the goods were cleared. This is more so as delivery to a transporter for carriage of goods at the direction of the importer would not by itself resulted in non-compliance of the Customs Act . 6. Similar view has been taken by the Tribunal in the case of Dominic Co. (Supra) wherein it has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation 13(d) also stands not providas held by the Tribunal in K.S. Sawant Co. (supra). With regard to the remaining charges levelled against the appellant under Regulation 12 and 13(n) as held by the Tribunal in H.P. Joshi Co. 2012 (284) ELT 358 that while giving personal hearing to the appellant, the Commissioner has not given notice to the appellant that he is not agreeing with the Inquiry Officer s report and that no reason for disagreement were also given. Therefore, relying on the decision of Delta Logistics (supra) these charges are also stands not proved. 7. In view of the above there is no justification for forfeiting the security deposit as has been ordered in the impugned order. The impugned order is set aside and the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
