9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 1090X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s also accepted the pleading of the respondent-Customs Broker that the classification under CTH 8518 was made as per the directions of the importer, which fact stood duly supported by the Show Cause Notice issued by the DRI to the importer. The Commissioner has thus concluded that there was no violation of any of the Regulations, as alleged in the Show Cause Notice, by the respondent-Customs Broker and being satisfied, has proceeded to drop the proposed proceedings. Other than filing the present appeal, the Revenue has not been able to dislodge the above findings of the lower authority, nor has it even denied the said findings as incorrect. The classification declared by the importer itself has been accepted and thus, there is no reason ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eiting the security deposit made by them. He would take us through the various allegations made in the Show Cause Notice as well and hence, it is his case that the Commissioner of Customs ought not to have dropped the proceedings against the respondent-Customs Broker. 3. Per contra, Shri S. Ganesh Aravindh, Ld. Advocate, defended the respondent-Customs Broker. He would also contend that the Customs Broker-respondent, in response to the said Show Cause Notice, did file a very detailed reply denying inter alia any failure on its part to comply with the requirements of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations (CBLR), the alleged wrong classification was never as per the advice of the respondent since, in the first place, the importer did n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e goods under Heading 8518. They had classified the goods as per the prevalent practice and as per the directions of the importer. The above report was accepted by the Commissioner of Customs (Imports) in the impugned Order-in-Original No. 25905/2014 dated 23.05.2014. 5.2 Further, in the impugned order, the Commissioner has also observed that it was not the case of the Department that the Customs Broker had given a different description than what was given in the import invoice. The above observation is of utmost relevance since the import invoice is issued by the vendor / foreign supplier to the importer. Further, the Commissioner has also accepted the pleading of the respondent-Customs Broker that the classification under CTH 8518 was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
