Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2019 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 911 - AT - CustomsImposition of penalty on CHA - Regulation 22 read with Regulation 20 of CBLR, 2013 - Contravention of provisions of Regulation 11(d), 11(n) and 17(9) ibid - mis-declaration of imported goods - it was alleged that the appellant as Customs broker failed to advise the importer to declare the actual description of goods imported by them - time Limitation - Held that:- Obtaining the business through the acquaintance of their employee is not offence under the CBLR - Regarding the use of another person‟s IEC by the appellant, it is evident at the first instance that the same was not within the knowledge of the appellant and, therefore, he cannot be held responsible for that. Even otherwise, it has been held in the case of M/s Necko Freight Forwarders Ltd. [2018 (1) TMI 1185 - DELHI HIGH COURT] that lending of IEC is not an offence under the Customs Act - Therefore, the appellant can also not be held to be liable for this charge which in any case is not sustainable against the appellant. Time Limitation - Held that:- The entire proceeding is time barred and the impugned order is liable to be set aside on this ground alone. The appellant has also taken due precaution to verify the antecedent of the importer so as to comply with the KYC norm. There are larger number of decisions which states that the appellant has Customs Broker is liable to verify the KYC of the appellant on the basis of documents supplied by them as a prudent person. The CHA is not supposed to verify the each and every aspect about the business of importer as the Inspector of Department or investigating agency - From the submission made by the ld. Advocate and fact on record, it is apparent that the appellant has taken due diligence while verifying the KYC of the appellant based on the record submitted by him. Commissioner has disagreed with the report of Inquiry Officer against the appellant without appreciating the responsibilities casted upon the appellant under CBLR. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|