The appellant, a customs broker, was found responsible for advising the importer to follow rules and...

The appellant, a customs broker, was found responsible for advising the importer to follow rules and regulations governing clearance of imported goods, and any non-compliance should have been brought to the customs authorities' notice. The appellant suggested the importer mis-declare the imported goods, described as "blank guns" which could have been modified into lethal weapons, to circumvent requirements under the Foreign Trade Policy and the Arms Act, 1959 read with the Arms Rules, 2016. The appellant had knowledge of such mis-declaration and mis-classification under CTH 9503 as "Blank Firing Guns," requiring a DGFT license under the import policy and a license under the Arms Act. The factual findings led to the forfeiture of the security deposit. As the case involved only factual findings, no substantial questions of law arose, and the appeal was dismissed. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X