Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2016 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (12) TMI 376 - AT - CustomsRevocation of the CHA Licence - forfeiture of the entire amount of security deposit - violations of provisions of CBLR 2013 - Embroidery Machine Needles imported from China - Evasion of ADD - mis-declaration of quantity of needles - needles was misdeclared as 20,000 pieces instead 1,00,00,000/- of pieces - undervaluation of goods - Held that: - We find that there is no dispute that large scale evasion of anti dumping duty by the importer is established and also misdeclaration of the quantity and value of the goods. As regard the charges of violation of various regulations alleged and confirmed by the lower authority, we find that the appellant before accepting the job of clearance of the goods has taken authority letter from the importer. From authority letter and the verification of the signature by the bank, we do not see any difference in the signature. Moreover whether the signature is correct or not if there is any doubt the same cannot be established without getting it certified from the forensic expert which department has failed to do. Moreover there are other documents like certificate of registration from Maharashtra Sales Tax Department in favour of the importer 'M/s. Jai Ambey Impex' also submitted therefore the identity of the importer is not under doubt. The entire objective of taking authority letter and KYC is for the purpose to establish the identity of the importer. In the present case the importer is very much existing all the time and he came forward to claim the goods imported therefore except mala fide intention on the part of the importer there is no doubt about the identity of the importer. As regard the dealing of CHA with the importer, we do not find anything malafide which led to offence of evasion of anti dumping duty. It is very important to note that when the appellant filed the Bill of Entry thereafter when they came to know about evasion of anti dumping duty and also there is a misdeclaration of quantity and value of the goods, he advise the importer for payment of anti dumping duty when he felt that the importer is not complying his advise. He immediately withdrawn himself as CHA vide his letter dt. 10.5.2013 i.e. within four days of filing Bill of Entry. As regard the mention by the Ld. Commissioner that the licence of the appellant was also revoked in the past, we are of the view that we cannot be influenced by any other case which is not before us. We have to consider the facts of the present case and if we found that in the present case no offence is established as per the facts and circumstances of this case then any other case cannot have a bearing in the present case. With our above discussion, we do not see that the conduct of the appellant is such that any of the violation of regulation as held by the Commissioner sustains. We are therefore of the considered view that from the facts and circumstances of the case, Revenue could not make out a case of revocation of the licence of CHA - We therefore set aside the order and allow the appeal.
|