TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 971X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Customs broker. Regarding KYC norms and obligations under Regulation 11, we find that case as made out in the original order is neither convincing nor sustainable. The Tribunal also observed that it is a settled law that the punishment has to be commensurate and proportionate to the offence committed. In the present case, it is noticed that the punishment of revocation is not justifiable even if it is to be admitted that physical verification of the importer’s premises could have avoided the filing of bill of entry by the appellant. Even in such a situation, the violation in respect of the cargo viz. the non-declaration of the RSP on the auto parts, a debatable point of interpretation, cannot be held against the appellant to result ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... D, Tughlakabad. Certain investigations were conducted by the officers of DRI regarding a consignment of auto parts imported by M/s. Spreet International. The goods were examined on 5.5.2014 and were found to be auto parts as per the packing list and the goods appeared to be covered by the Third Schedule of Customs Tariff Act, 1985 to attract retail sale price based assessment. The goods were detained. The importer filed a bill of entry on 23.05.2014 through the appellant on first check basis. As no retail sale price was found on the packages, the good were seized and further investigations were conducted. On conclusion of investigation, a show cause notice dated 7.11.2014 was issued by the Dy. Director, DRI, Delhi in connection with the con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Cus dated 8.4.2010 regarding KYC norms for the clients; (b) The bill of entry in the present case was filed after the goods were detained by the officers of DRI. The bill of entry was filed for verification of the contents before assessment, on first check basis. Hence, there can be no allegation of intentional violation of any provisions of Customs Act by the appellant; (c) The inquiry report examined all aspects of the case and concluded correctly that the appellant have not violated the provisions of CBLR, 2013. 5. Ld. AR reiterated the findings as per the impugned order and submitted that the importer was not existing in the declared premises given in the IEC. The appellant have failed to verify the background of the im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Central Excise Act, 1944 for CVD. We find that the bill of entry was filed by the appellant after the goods were detained by the officers of DRI. The said bill of entry was filed on first check basis for verification of the goods before assessment. In such a situation, we find that no malafide or intentional violation of any provisions of the Customs Act can be alleged on the part of the Customs broker. Regarding KYC norms and obligations under Regulation 11, we find that case as made out in the original order is neither convincing nor sustainable. 9. We find that the impugned order did not make out a sustainable case for revocation of licence. In the case of Setwin Shipping Agency Vs. CC (General), Mumbai - 2010 (250) ELT 141 (Tribun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
