9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 1132X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ck let off' the road tyre by way of mis declaration and under valuation, the officers of DRI put on hold the import consignment covered under Bill of Entry No. 2585131 dated 26.3.2019 and also covered under Bill of Entry No. 2624519 dated 29.03.2019. On examination 2429 tyres were found imported against the declared quantity of 1649 tyres. The imported tyres were in addition, observed to not to be "off the road tyres" and were without mandatory BIS markings. Accordingly, the show cause notice bearing No. 4790 dated 30.02.20 was served upon to Shri Suryajeet Singh, Proprietor of M/s. Sai Enterprises, Shri R K Sharma, owner of Sharma Enterprises, and Shri Santosh Kumar Gupta, present appellants, the CHA and G card holder respectively and Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e set aside, appeal is prayed to be allowed. 4. Per contra, learned Authorised Representative has mentioned that it was incumbent duty of CHA only to verify the products imported not only those the duty was to warn importer to not to import the prohibited goods under the garb of mis-declaration. 5. After hearing the parties and perusing entire record, it is held as follows: Bill of Entry as were filed for importing the tyres declared goods as "multi brand and multi size stock let off the road tyre", which on physical verification, were found to be of "multi brand multi size new radial car tyres " that too without mandatory BIS markings. Not only this, the tyres were found excess in quantity. Thus apparently, present is the case of mis de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hem denied any violation of CBLR on their part but the aforenoticed observations amounts to foregoing the mandatory duty casted upon the CHA firm by the Customs Broker Licence Regulations (CBLR). Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs Versus K.M. Ganatra & Co. reported in [2016 (332) E.L.T. 15 (S.C.)] wherein the role of CHA has been elaborated and due compliance of CBLR has been impressed upon. It has placed reliance on the decision in Noble Agency v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai reported in [2002 (142) E.L.T. 84 (Tri. - Mumbai)] wherein a Division Bench of the CEGAT, West Zonal Bench, Mumbai has observed :- "The CHA occupies a very important position in the Customs House. The Customs procedures are complic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 62. The penalty under section 112 is for improper importation of goods and apparently the facts of the present appeals reflect the improper importation of goods that too the prohibited goods. Hence, I find no infirmity when penalty under section 112 (b)(i) has been imposed instead of it being imposed under CBLR. Similarly, penalty has been imposed upon under section 117 which is for such contravention as are not expressly mentioned under the Customs Act, 1962. The violation of any provisions of CBLR by CHA has no specific mention under Customs Act, section 117 has rightly been invoked by the appellants. Above all fraud vitiates everything and as discussed above, there is notional fraud being committed while importing prohibited goods under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
