TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 589X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellants’ act of filing the bill of entry. Admittedly, at the time of filing the bill of entry the appellants did not get all the required documents to fulfill the KYC norms of the importer. Such act may attract proceedings, if at all, under the regulations for licensing of a CHA. For penalty under Customs Act, 1962 it is apparent that mere filing of bill of entry, without the knowledge or a role in the importation of cargo, is not sufficient - penalty set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellants. - Customs Appeals No. 51010 and 51069 of 2015 (SM) - Final Order No. 51936-51937/2017 - Dated:- 22-2-2017 - Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Shri Somesh Arora, Advocate for the appellants. Shri R.K. Mishra, Au ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ference received from their regular customer, Shri Deepak Rishi they received the connected documents and accordingly filed bill of entry with the understanding that full particulars to fulfill the KYC norms of the importer should be submitted to them within two days. Since the particulars were not forthcoming from the importer they wrote a letter to the customs on 12/07/2012 indicating that they are withdrawing from transaction with the said bill of entry in the absence of satisfactory KYC norms supplied by the importer. On 13/07/2012, the containers were examined and found to contain the said offending goods. The learned Counsel submitted that though they filed the bill of entry, as they have not got satisfactory KYC documents within two ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the time of filing the bill of entry the appellants did not get all the required documents to fulfill the KYC norms of the importer. Such act may attract proceedings, if at all, under the regulations for licensing of a CHA. For penalty under Customs Act, 1962 it is apparent that mere filing of bill of entry, without the knowledge or a role in the importation of cargo, is not sufficient. Even otherwise in the present case it is seen that the appellants withdrew from the transaction before the mis-declaration was detected by the officers in the custom house. The assertion in the impugned order that such withdrawal of the appellants is based on their knowledge of the secret alert with the officers, is not substantiated with any evidence. On ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
