9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 631X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant has been suspended vide the impugned Order, under regulation 16(1) R.W.16(2) of the CBLR 2018 on the allegation of forgery and manipulation of documents committed by the Appellant. The Appellant was also arrested in view of the above allegation. 2. That the brief facts are- the Appellant was engaged by the importer-M/s Kinshuk Overseas, Suraj Industries compound, Dethli Road, Sidhpur-384151, Gujarat, for clearance of Watermelon seeds for human consumption, at Thar Dry Port, Jodhpur, Notification No. 03/2015-2020 dated 26.04.2021 was issued by Directorate General of Foreign Trade, wherein the Watermelon Seeds have been restricted/prohibited for import into India except under license. 3. By the above said notification dated 26.04.202 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated 10.06.2021, that the containers for Bill of Lading were allotted after 26.04.2021, (the date of DGFT notification)-"containers for subject BL shows that allotment has been done afterwards, which will create a huge problem for us." The note in e mail dated 02.06.2021 "Please make sure that BL & Container details must be prior to 25 April, and all the document should tally with BL Date (Phyto & fumigation should have gap with BL date, as per the normal term", clearly reflects that forged/fake documents were created as per requirement of the importer to pass through the Customs barrier undetected. 6. On scrutiny of the documents and preliminary investigation it has been revealed that the containers with watermelon seed were dispatched af ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the reply to the shipping line for the e mail dated 01.06.2021 was forwarded on 10.07.2021, well after the seizure was made. Thus, even when the situation was doubtful, the appellant CB chose to file the BOE not as per the Revised Notification, referring the said goods under restricted category. Legal Propositions-Allegation 11. Thus, the CB has failed to advise his client to comply with statutory provisions, exercise due diligence to ascertain the correctness of any information which he imparted to his client and not to withhold any information issued by Customs Authorities, in relation to clearance of cargo as per Regulations 10(d), 10(e) and 10(f) of the CBLR 2018 regulations. 12. Thus, the F card Holder (Ajay Agarwal) in this case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... LC Ltd vide commercial invoice cum packing list no. BIICO.21.067 dated 20th April 2021 dispatched 180 MT (net weight) watermelon seeds packed in 4500 bags, each bag weighing 40kg for total value (AED) 3.96.576/-. The commercial invoice also have reference to the pro-forma invoice dated 19th February 2021, similarly vide another commercial invoice no. BIICO.21.61 dated 20/04/2021 the shipper dispatched another quantity of 180MT watermelon seeds similarly packed in 4500 bags of equal value. The bill of lading are numbered BAXSOC000242 and 243 both dated 20th April 2021 issued by shipping line 'Bay lines' wherein the shipper is Bayroni IIC ltd and the consignee is the importer-Kingshuk Overseas. The port of loading has been shown as Sudan and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adverse inference against the appellant. There is all possibility that there is error on the part of staff of the shipping line in filling and uploading the data on their Website. It is a known Canon in computerisation- 'Garbage In-Garbage Out', that is, if there is error in filling data, the final result will be also erroneous. Thus, the Learned Commissioner have erred in selectively relying on some vague data, on the Website, and ignoring the relevant document of title, that is commercial invoice, bill of lading and the documents issued by the Government Authority of Sudan, namely phytosanitary certificate, fumigation certificate, country of origin, etc. There is no discussion in the impugned order as to why these vital documents have bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... statement of the importer, wherein he is alleged to have stated that he has fabricated documents on the advice of the Custom Broker/appellant. The statement has been retracted. A statement which is retracted or otherwise, and more so not being substantiated by documentary or other proof, cannot be appreciated as evidence. Moreover, we find that revenue could not bring in any evidence to show that the appellant Custom Broker had any fiduciary interest in the alleged malpractice if any on the part of the appellant. In fact, there should be a strong motive for Custom Broker for indulging in such an activity. Revenue has not brought out any evidence, whatsoever as to the benefit that customs Broker got by indulging in such activity. There coul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
