Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2017 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (1) TMI 1740 - CESTAT NEW DELHIRevocation of CHA License - seeking to set aside forfeiture of the security deposit - only reason cited by the Commissioner to disregard the enquiry report of the Assistant Commissioner is that the appellant’s manager in his statement has admitted that they have failed to notice the discrepancy in the invoice and could did intimate the importer to file the correct documents - HELD THAT:- There are no case of abetment can be made out against the appellant for the undervaluation indulged by the importer. Any customs broker normally files the documents on the basis of what has been given to them by the importer. He cannot be expected to get them verified at the foreign exporter’s end. In the case laws relied upon by the appellant the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (GENERAL), MUMBAI VERSUS MD. SHIPPING AGENCY [2014 (2) TMI 624 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] in similar circumstances, has held under Regulation 13(d) of CHALR the occasion to advice the importer would not arise because there was no occasion for the CHA to know or even suspect that the importer was not complying with the provisions of the Customs Act and / or advance license under which the goods were cleared. This is more so as delivery to a transporter for carriage of goods at the direction of the importer would not by itself resulted in non-compliance of the Customs Act. There is no justification for forfeiting the security deposit as has been ordered in the impugned order - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|