TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 786X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 000/- furnished by them. In addition, a penalty of ₹ 50,000/- imposed on the appellant. Appeal allowed in part. - Appeal No. C/51832/2017 - Final Order No.51329/2018 - Dated:- 12-4-2018 - Dr. Satish Chandra, President And Mr V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) For the Appellant : Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri R.K. Manjhi, DR ORDER Per V. Padmanabhan The present appeal is against the Order-in-Original No.37/2017 dated 04.07.2017. The appellant is a Custom Broker and licensed by the Commissioner Customs, Delhi. They were also granted permission to transact Customs related work in Bombay. The appellant filed Bill of Entry in Bombay for clearance of goods imported by M/s Chirag Cor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ved by the appellant only on 14.03.2015 whereas the date of the letter issued by the Commissioner Customs is 01.11.2014. ii) On merit, he submitted that the allegations made against the appellant are mainly on three grounds: a. The CHA has acted without proper authorisation from the importer; b. CHA has failed to verify the KYC documents properly; c. CHA did not advice the importer regarding the proper compliance of the Customs Act and Rules. iii) He submitted that the appellant has taken all reasonable steps to fulfill their obligation under the Customs Broker Regulations. CHA is not required to physically verify the details of the importer but it is sufficient to satisfy themselves of KYC on the basis of documents submitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red to obtain authorisation from the importer on whose behalf the documents are being filed with Custom Department. The appellant s operations in Bombay were handled by Ashok Bharsiwal Tiwari, employee of the appellant and G. card holder. He also held the Power of Attorney on behalf of the appellant. The Bills of Entry have been filed in Bombay on behalf of M/s Chirag Corporation. Customs authorities have found serious offences against the importer. During the investigation by the Customs Authorities, various statements were recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, from which it stands established that the appellant had failed to obtain proper authorization from the importer M/s Chirag Corporation. Shri Ashok Tiwari, has acted only o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s established that the appellant had failed to comply with both the above regulations. It is seen from record that the CB has facilitated the importer to misdeclare the goods so as to fraudulently avail the benefit of DFIA licence. Further, it is found that CB did not verify the antecedents, correctness of IEC, identity of the client as well his functioning at the declared address. The investigation found that the importer M/s Chirag Corporation was not functioning from the address declared. We hold that violation of Regulation 11(e) and (n) stand established. (d) Regulation 17(9) This regulation requires the CB to exercise proper supervision over the conduct of his employees and shall be held responsible for all acts of omission of h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
