9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 485X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. His statement rather reveals that the appellant per se was unaware about the true nature of the import. Since the importer was not found at the given address and the appellant was acting without any proper consultation and authorization, it can readily be held that the appellant was intentionally shirking his liability. The goods in question were restricted under Indian law requiring authorization from DGFT. Admittedly, the said authorization was not obtained and the appellant did not bother to check for that authorization. Time limitation - HELD THAT:- Though appellant has taken the plea that the show cause notice vide Corrigendum dated 16.11.2023 was much beyond the show cause notice dated 28.11.2022 as was served upon the importer, the show cause notice is alleged to be barred by time. However, it is apparent on record that the delay had occurred due to the time taken for securing the presence of the importer and their representative/key person by the appellant himself. One of them had never joined the investigation. The appellant himself was maid to serve the summons to the importers. Penalty under Section 112(a)(i) of Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT:- The appellant had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... heir value, the said goods were seized under Section 110 of the Act ibid on the reasonable suspicion that they are liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) and 111(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 vide Seizure Memo dated 29.11.2021. 1.2 Thus investigations were carried out in view of the aforesaid facts and during the course of investigations, various statements including the statement of the Noticee herein and its staff thereof were also recorded by the Department. Based upon such investigations, it was concluded that the goods declared in the Bill of Entry No.: 5810301 dated 12.10.2021 was readymade garments and classified under CTH 62099090/ 62044990/ 62114990. However, the goods found during examination was "worn clothing and other worn articles" which falls under CTH 6309000 and the same are "restricted" as per Notification No.: 07 (RE-2004)/ 2004- 09 dated 27.10.2004 issued by the Department of Commerce, Ministry of Commerce & Industry. Accordingly, the value of the said goods was also re-determined to Rs. 71,065/- as per contemporary value of similar goods under Rule 5 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of value of imported goods) Rule, 2017. 1.3 In this background tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... art. Despite that appellant has wrongly been penalized by the adjudicating authority. The appellant was not required to physically verify the premises of the importer. Non-interaction with the importer is wrongly alleged as lack of diligence on its part. It is also wrongly alleged that appellant submitted a false report regarding delivery of personal hearing letter. At the most there could be alleged violation of CBLR, 2018 but the proposal of imposition of penalty even under CBLR, 2018 cannot be considered as an act of connivance for import of confiscated goods. The penalty has wrongly been imposed upon the appellant. 3.1 Finally it was submitted that the show cause notice was initially issued to the importers only and not to the Custom Broker/the appellant. He was simply asked to get the letters of personal hearing served upon the importer despite that it was not his job. It is after he submitted the delivery report that the appellant was included as co-noticee belatedly vide corrigendum dated 16.11.2023. Seen from this angle also, the show cause notice is vague vis-à-vis appellant. Imposition of penalty based on such show cause notice is therefore liable to be set aside. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upon the goods were seized. (iii) The appellant had never met the importer except for the person namely Shri Nikhil Kumar without checking any authorization in his favour to represent the importer. (iv) There is no authorization in favour of the appellant. (v) The importer M/s. DS Export was not found available at the address mentioned in IEC and Shri Lalit Jain had never joined the investigation. 6. Based on these facts, the adjudicating authorities below have held as follows: "On perusal of the statements of Sh. Ved Joon, F Card Holder/Proprietor of M/s. Airlift Carries, Sh. Jaswant Singh and Sh. Randhir Singh, it is apparent that each persons tried passing responsibility of verify the KYC documents submitted to their firm by the importer from one to another but eventually the responsibility is on Customs Broker. It is a pre-requisite to verify the physical address of the importer before filling the Bill of Entry on behalf of the importer lies on the F-Card i.e. Proprietor of M/s. Airlift Carries only as the license has been issued to Noticee No.2 only. Due to non-discharge of Customs Broker's legal obligation, noticee no.2 filed bill of entry of a non-existent importer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tive without any authorization. Since the importer was not found at the given address and the appellant was acting without any proper consultation and authorization, it can readily be held that the appellant was intentionally shirking his liability. The possibility of prior knowledge of mis-declared and overvalued consignment to have been imported by the importers with the appellant cannot be ruled out. No cooperation otherwise was forwarded by the appellant to cause the presence of Shri Lalit Jain, the key person of the importer. His business address was also found inactive. 8. The goods in question were restricted under Indian law requiring authorization from DGFT. Admittedly, the said authorization was not obtained and the appellant did not bother to check for that authorization. 9. Though appellant has taken the plea that the show cause notice vide Corrigendum dated 16.11.2023 was much beyond the show cause notice dated 28.11.2022 as was served upon the importer, the show cause notice is alleged to be barred by time. However, it is apparent on record that the delay had occurred due to the time taken for securing the presence of the importer and their representative/key person ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
