9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 485X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re found to be clothes which appeared to be old and worn clothes of very poor quality. Further, the said clothes were apparently without any tags or stickers and also there were no tags or labels found on the polysacks packing of the said clothes. In view of the above, the value of USD 72,69,935, i.e. INR 55,03,34,093/- didn't appear genuine on the part of the importer and appeared to be grossly overvalued. Accordingly, on reasonable belief that the importer had filed the above-mentioned Bill of Entry by declaring very high value, which appears to be incorrect and thereby grossly mis-declaring the goods in terms of their 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.: 581030 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 112, 114 and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 alleging appellant to have conspired to import restricted goods and for filing of fake Bill of Lading, Commercial Invoice etc. It is submitted that in the entire show cause notice there is not even a whisper about filing of fake Bill of Lading, Commercial Invoice etc. There are no allegations that the appellant had ever mis-declared the goods in terms of description, quantity, quality etc. The discrepancies were found only after the physical examination of the consignment in which the appellant had no role as CHA/CB. The importer otherwise has admitted the lapses on their part. 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 pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the entire records, we observe following to be the admitted facts: (i) The importer M/s. DS Enterprises filed Bill of Entry dated 12.10.2021 for clearance of readymade garments with the declared value of USD 72,69,935.18 through CHA M/s. Airlift Carriers with appellant as its proprietor. (ii) On physical examination, the goods under the said Bill of Entry were found to be the old and worn clothes of very poor quality without any tags or stickers, not even on the packing bags thereof unjustifying the declared value of USD 72,69,935.18. Unjustified violation gave the reasonable belief to the authority based whereupon 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was never in direct contact with the importer. The G-card holder of the appellant was contacted by one Shri Nikhil Kumar. Admittedly no authorization of importer in favour of Shri Nikhil Kumar nor in favour of the present appellant is on record. The impugned consignment is a high value consignment. Much more due diligence was required on part of the Custom Broker in which the appellant has miserably failed. His statement rather reveals that the appellant per se was unaware about the true nature of the import. He totally relied upon, Shri Jaswant Singh, his G-Card Holder who relied merely on the importer's representative 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 ina ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
