New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (11) TMI 1082 - CESTAT MUMBAI

2015 (11) TMI 1082 - CESTAT MUMBAI - 2016 (343) E.L.T. 684 (Tri. - Mumbai) - Suspension of CHA license - Evasion of CVD - Undervaluation - Held that:- there is no allegation made out against the appellant CHA firm of the active involvement in the alleged undervaluation by the said importers. Further no documents appeared to have been executed and handled by the said Faiyaz Merchant, on behalf of the appellant firm. It is further admitted fact that the suspension have been made by way of interim .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

admitted fact that the suspension have been made by way of interim measure for alleged misgivings and/or action or inaction on the part of the appellant for imports prior to March, 2012, almost after 2 years and as such interim suspension, pending inquiry is bad and not called for. - Interim suspension of the appellant CHA firm vide the impugned order is set aside. The Commissioner of Customs is directed to complete the inquiry proceedings expeditiously preferably within a period of 12 mont .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t Order-in-Original No. 09/201415 dated 23.04.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (General) Mumbai, by which the interim suspension was ordered to be continue being order dated 03/05.03.2014. 2. The facts in brief are that the appellant P.P. Associates is a Customs broker under licence number 11/1996 and is a partnership firm. An information was received by the DRI which revealed that one M/s Riddhi Siddhi Collection and M/s Aisha Electronics, importers of the rechargeable torches, emerge .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rs Mr. Manoj Meghraj Jain and Mr. Mitesh Kumar Meghraj Jain; defacto owners. Preliminary enquiry revealed that the subject goods are subjected to Levy of additional duty of Customs based on the RSP, as per Notification No. 49/2008 Central Excise (NT) 24/12/2008. It was found that the goods were being sold through webportals, like EBay and other retailers. Market survey of these goods revealed that the importers are only declaring 20 to 25% of the actual retail sale price. The proprietor of Riddh .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the Customs. Further the proprietor of Aisha Electronics, Mr. Faisal Javeri, in his statement recorded under section 108, has admitted that he does not know the procedure for import and export of goods and does not know anything about import documents or different types of Customs duties. At the same time he added that he undervalued the goods by about 25% of the assessable value then shown in the bill of entry for payment of Customs duty. He also admitted that RSP in the bill of entry is approx .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

008, so he started doing clearance works through his brother s CHA firm i.e. the appellant. He had introduced Mr. Sunil to the appellant s firm. The import work for M/s Riddhi Siddhi Collection was started in April, 2010 and subsequently Sunil used to come for filing documents for both these parties, and importers also introduced M/s Aisha Electronics and its proprietor Mr. Faisal Javeri. Both the parties M/s Riddhi Siddhi Collection and M/s Aisha Electronics stop the clearance from Mumbai port .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

at the allegation is of subletting. Further, the allegation is violation of Regulation 11(b) of CBLR, 2013 which states that the Customs Broker will transact business in the Customs station either personally or through approved employees i.e. employee duly approved by the Department. From the statements of Faiyaz Merchant, it appears that he has handled the clearance works for the aforementioned importers on behalf of the appellant. It is further alleged that the appellant in violation of Regula .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ant has abetted in gross suppression of transaction value of imported goods. Further allegation is violation of Regulation 11(g), wherein, the appellant is required to promptly pay over to the Government, when due, sums received for payment of any duty, tax or other chares or obligations all promptly account for the same to its client for the funds received on his behalf. The said Faiyaz Merchant has admitted in his statement that N form for non-payment of octroi charges, if the goods are to be .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

iolation of Regulation 11(m), in that the Customs broker is required to discharge his duties with the utmost speed and efficiency and without any delay. Whereas it appears that the appellant broker was actively involved in clearance of under valued goods. The said resulted in evasion of duty. Further it is alleged the appellant violate Regulation 11(n), wherein, a custom broker is required to verify antecedent, correctness of Import Export Code (IEC), to identity of his client and functioning of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

BLR, 2013 pending inquiry proceedings under Regulation 20 of CBLR. 5. Being aggrieved the appellant is in appeal against the impugned order. The Counsel for the appellant, argues that section 19 (1) of CBLR, 2013 empowered the Commissioner to suspend by way of interim measure when the immediate steps are required to prevent broker in the evasion of revenue and further violations by the appellant. It is admitted fact that no further imports were made after March 2012 by the appellants firm. For .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s issued only in May, 2014 which is more than 2 years after the alleged events and/or misgivings on the part of the appellant. As such no sufficient reason is recorded by the Commissioner for suspending the appellant by way of an interim measure, pending inquiry and final disposal of the show cause notice issued, after the impugned order, in May 2014. It is further urged that the appellant CHA firm have suffered suspension for almost 12 months. The appellant and its employees livelihood is in qu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version