9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 1050X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ulation 11(d), 11(m), 11(n) of the CBLR, 2013? (ii) Whether the Tribunal was right in directing the appellant to examine the application of the respondent for renewal of license? 2. Heard Shri. Amit Anand Deshpande, learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue. Though served, none appeared for the Respondent. 3. Brief facts of the case are, respondent M/s Shri. Manjunatha Shipping Pvt. Ltd is a Customs House Agent License holder [License No.R-37/99] issued on November 12, 1999 and valid up to October 16, 2014. On August 21, 2014, the Joint Commissioner, Bangalore submitted an Offence Report [C.No. VIII/48/69/2014] stating that the respondent had involved in commission of the offence of illegal import of insecticides, namely, Nitenpyrum an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rements of Section 46 of the Customs Act, 1962 which mandatorily requires the importer/custom house agents to declare full, correct and accurate information concerning the goods being imported in the appropriate columns while filing the Bill of Entry; * the Tribunal has erred in overlooking the responsibility of the Customs Broker who had filed Bill of Entry for the import, to provide complete details of imported goods. The Agent has failed to give the correct description of goods and correct classification was not declared. The Tribunal has failed to record any finding with regard to the breach of CBLR, 2013 in the impugned Order; * the respondent has colluded with the importer in mis-declaration and mis-classification of goods with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orted were not oxygen or any other gas under the said heading and they were fully aware of the fact that the goods imported was a chemical. It is further recorded in OIO that the respondent did not disclose basic information like complete description of goods, common name and chemical name, specification, etc., in the Bill of Entry as required under CBEC [Central Board of Excise and Customs] Circular No. 35/2011 dated August 9, 2011. It is clear from the said findings recorded in the OIO that respondent had not exercised due diligence and mis-declared the nature of goods which lead to the evasion of duty. Thus, there is clear violation of CBLR, 2013. 10. In the OIO it has recorded that on September 5, 2014, an opportunity of personal heari ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
