9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 18X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e authority to be exercised judicially and in consideration of all the relevant circumstances, bound by the rules of reason and law. Such action cannot be taken on assumptions and presumptions devoid of concrete facts showing wrongdoing. The impugned order merits to be quashed and is ordered accordingly - Appeal allowed. - Customs Appeal No.40510 of 2021 - Final Order No. 40622/2023 - Dated:- 31-7-2023 - Shri M. Ajit Kumar, Member (Technical) Shri Derrick Sam, Advocate for the Appellant Shri N. Satyanarayanan, AC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER The appeal is filed by the appellant against Order in Original No. 85349/2021 dated 22.7.2021 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs, Chennai VIII. 2. The appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the goods covered under shipping bills Shipping Bills Nos. 3984398, 3982770 3983402 all dated 06.05.2019, were examined by the officers under mahazar dated 20.05.2019 and found to matching with the description. After testing the samples variation was found with respect to the specification of the goods mentioned in the invoice. The Hon ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Kunal Travels (Cargo) Vs. CC (I G), IGI Airport, New Delhi reported in 2017 (354) ELT 447, has held that the Customs Broker are only processing agent of documents for clearance of goods through Customs House and are not inspector to weigh genuineness of transaction. It has been held in the impugned order that the appellant has violated Regulation 10(a) of CBLR, 2018, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rcise of his functioning, he believes in good faith that these documents were genuine, he is not liable to penal action. The said judgment has been upheld by the Hon ble High Court of Bombay as reported in 2009 (240) ELT A413 (Bom.) The appellant had verified the functioning of the appellant in his place of his business, even though there is no requirement of physical verification of the address of the exporter as per law. It is sufficient to obtain only KYC documents and the same has also been obtained in the said case. It is further submitted that the exporter M/s. Sun Impex, being a new client to the appellant, has obtained all the documents from the exporter and has registered the same with the Chennai Customs Department. The appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpugned order. 7. Heard both sides. I find that this is a case where the CHA has been engaged by an exporter who has allegedly been involved in a blame worthy act. It is Revenues case that the appellant has violated various provisions of the CBLR Regulations and hence as per the impugned order was visited with penalty. 7.1 In this case it is seen that; a) At the stage of examination of goods by the officers under mahazar dated 20.05.2019 it was found to match the description. b) It was only after testing the samples that variation was found with respect to the goods mentioned in the invoice. c) Unlike stated in the SCN, the appellant had obtained the authorization from the exporter and the same was also recorded in the statem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
