9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 1034X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce of goods. As a regular Customs Broker, it is not expected that he would accept any document including KYC in a mechanical manner. He is expected to exercise due diligence to satisfy about the bonafide of the importer and the documents submitted by him. The employee of the Customs Broker in the instant case has in fact noted and admitted that there was some kind of impersonation and that should have alerted him and he should have brought to the notice of the Customs Authority immediately, instead he remained silent. This is the admitted position in the statement given by the Appellant and the Appellant is also not denying this fact nor giving any substantive reason about him being silent about the impersonation in the first place. He is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 23 - Dated:- 25-5-2023 - MR. A.K. JYOTISHI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri S. Venkat Chand, Representative for the Appellant. Shri P. Amaresh, DR for the Respondent. ORDER The Appellant has filed for setting aside the Order of Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) had upheld the Order of the Original Authority, imposing a penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- on the Appellant under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 for use of false and incorrect material. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that one M/s Rupesh Xerox imported a consignment of goods declared as photocopy machine spares. However, on opening of the container in the presence of Shri B. Sudhakar, employee of Customs Broker and Importer Shri R. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... perused the records. 5. The Appellant is relying on certain case laws in support of their claim that facts of the case does not warrant a levy of penalty under Section 114AA against him as there is no evidence that he was aware of mis-declaration on the part of the importer. They further pointed out that they had obtained KYC documents and then only based on import documents, filed the Bill of Entry and they had no reason, prima facie, for any suspicion in that situation. 6. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative has reiterated the Orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). He specifically invited the attention to Para 5.2 of the Order-in-Appeal in which, inter alia, the Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sition in the statement given by the Appellant and the Appellant is also not denying this fact nor giving any substantive reason about him being silent about the impersonation in the first place. He is responsible for the act of his employee also who is misrepresenting the CHB before the Customs Authorities. 8. Thus, there is not much merit as regard to argument of his being not aware about mis-declaration. The relied upon judgments in support of his being not liable to the penalty under Section 114AA have been perused. For the reasons discussed in foregoing paras, these judgments cannot be relied upon in as much as in the instant case, there is clear and positive act of concealing the real identity of importer by the Customs Broker with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
