Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2023 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (11) TMI 378 - AT - CustomsRevocation of Customs Broker license - forfeiture of security deposit - levy of penalty - Import of ‘hearing aids' by over valuation of imported goods for the purpose of money laundering - violation of Regulations 10(d), 10(e) and 10(n) of CBLR, 2018. Violation of Regulation 10(d) ibid - HELD THAT:- The appellants have duly filed the bill of entry as per the documents given by the importer and they were not aware of the mis-declaration of value of the goods. As there is no specific brand name of the imported goods, nothing was mentioned and it could not be said that ‘unbranded’ needs to be mentioned. In the instant case the mis-declaration was found by the department after physical examination and market inquiry of the goods, and hence the appellants CB cannot be found fault that he did not advise his client to comply with the provisions of the Act - mis-declaration was not known to the appellants CB, and when they had specifically sought for examination of the goods under First Check basis, the non-compliance by the importer of declaring the correct value of the goods, could not have been brought to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs by the appellants, as the Appraising group itself got a reasonable belief of incorrect value only after examination of goods and perusal of samples - the violation of Regulation 10(d) ibid, as concluded in the impugned order is not sustainable. Violation of provision of Regulation 10(e) ibid - HELD THAT:- The appellants CB has declared the value of imported goods as given in the commercial invoice, which is the transaction value. Further, submitting the declaration form (GATT valuation declaration) in terms of Rule 11, is primarily the responsibility of the importer and in case of proper authorization being given by them, then by the agent of that importer. In the present case, it is not in dispute that there was any such mis-declaration in the declaration form or in the value particulars declared in the bill of entry as compared to the commercial invoice - There are no evidence or fact indicating that there was a mis-declaration of value and the value was re-determined as per the above legal provisions. There is only a mention that the market inquiry was conducted by the department and it revealed that the actual value of the consignment is Rs.15,000/- as against declared value of Rs.59,79,521/- - such an allegation at the show cause notice stage and later at the findings stage in the impugned order requires factual details or evidence to state that there was mis-declaration and the same is attributable to the appellants CB, in order to invoke the violation of due-diligence having not been undertaken by the appellants - there exists no such evidence and on the contrary the declaration made in the bill of entry corresponds to the value declared in the commercial invoice. Thus, the conclusion arrived by the Principal Commissioner of Customs (General) in the impugned order that the appellants have violated Regulation 10(e) ibid is not sustainable. Violation of Regulation 10(n) of CBLR, 2018 - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the appellants CB had obtained the KYC documents and submitted the same to the Customs Department. Thus, there are no legal basis for upholding of the alleged violation of CBLR, 2018 by the appellants in the impugned order. There is definitely delay in adjudication and that for the import transaction in 30.01.2018, the order of revocation of appellant’s CB license has been passed on 12.02.2021. Revenue is unable to explain why there was such a long delay in taking action against appellants, when the information about over valuation of import through SIIB investigation was received vide letter dated 22.02.2019. There are no reasons recorded in detail justifying the delay in passing the impugned order by the learned Principal Commissioner. It appears that the reasons having been not quoted and if such reasons exist, the same being not specified and not explained for undue delay cannot be accepted as reasonable grounds in terms of the test laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay. There is no basis for sustaining the impugned order of the learned Principal Commissioner - Appeal allowed.
|