9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 695X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndent and authentic sources and he is neither required nor has any wherewithal to conduct an investigation into the importer s business. Regarding other allegations, it is found that though it is alleged that the Custom Broker did not exercise due diligence and did not apprise the importer of various Rules, Procedures and Prohibitions thereof. Except for bald allegation no evidence has been adduced to allege that the Custom Broker had the previous knowledge of mis-declaration of the value and contents of the consignment. Department merely mentions that the value declared was three and odd lakhs of rupees whereas the actual value was more than Rs.75 Lakhs and the fact in itself shows the culpability of the Custom Broker. This contention is n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls for hands free, Speaker attachment i.e. Jali (Bose), LCD and touch screen, LCD for 4s and 5s I-Phone, Touch LCD 6 , Glamcomm matte lipstick, Nike Running/ Zoom shoes, shoes of Adidas Equipment (made in Vietnam and wrist watch of Rolex, Michael Kors, Police, Ulysee Nardin, Hublot, Rado, Tissot, Fossil, Emporio, Armani, Cartier, Tag, Heuher, DIOR-VIII were found; total value was found to be Rs.73,74,526/-; the goods were seized; on culmination of the proceedings, the said goods were confiscated and a penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- was imposed, inter alia, on Smt. Savinder Sharma, FCard holder of M/s Karan Logistics (the appellant); on the basis of the information received from New Delhi Customs House, Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Amrits ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant was earlier involved in cases of mis-declaration by Shri Surender Kumar Jain vide Bill of Entry No.2466446 dated 15.07.2017 by M/s Roop Singh Enterprises vide Bill of Entry No.2447706 dated 14.07.2017; though CESTAT set aside the order of revocation, vide Order-in-Original dated 05.09.2018, vide Order dated 21.05.2019, the same has been challenged before the Hon ble High Court by the Department. He takes us through the different Regulations and submits that the appellant has contravened the provisions of Regulations No.11(d) (e) (n) as he has failed to : (d) Advise his client to comply with the provisions of the Act and in case of non-compliance and to bring up the matter to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the value declared was three and odd lakhs of rupees whereas the actual value was more than Rs.75 Lakhs and the fact in itself shows the culpability of the Custom Broker. We do not accept this contention as it is not alleged with any evidence. The previous knowledge of the Custom Broker, in the acts of omission and commission of the importer, i.e. Mens Rea is not established. It is not even alleged that the Custom Broker had obtained any extra financial gain in helping the misdeeds of the importer. We find that in such circumstances, the allegations cannot be sustained. The act of the Custom Broker cannot be said to be in violation of the CHLR 2018 and therefore, we are of the considered opinion that no case has been made to revoke the lic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
