TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1534X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vt. Ltd. [2004 (2) TMI 65 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA]. The appellant also failed to inform the concerned Customs Officer Incharge of assessment of the goods about the fact of non-availability of SIFS scrip in this case. It was the duty of the CHA to guide and advise for the payment of Customs duty to the importer that the impugned SFIS scrip is not applicable in their case of the import made by the importer. Also, the High Sea Sale was itself in a doubt because the same has been affected prior to the loading of consignment in the aircraft which is conceptually wrong for affecting such High Sea Sale. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - Customs Appeal No. C/51898/2017 [DB] - Final Order No. 52861/2018 - Dated:- 24-8-2018 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of goods by the applicant on behalf of M/s TDAAL, who admitted to make appropriate customs duty using SIF (served from India) scrip No. 0510397433 issued to them by debiting the same. The aforesaid import subsequently became the subject matter of adjudication and accordingly Order No. VIII/12/ACE/Gr.- 7/TDAA/ADJ/91/2017 dated 15.03.2017. 3. Commissioner(G) passed the impugned order dated 15.11.2017 under the Regulation 20(7) of CBLR, 2013 revoking the CB license and imposing the penalty of ₹ 25,000/- under Regulation 22 upon the CB on the following grounds:- (i) The HSS Agreement was invalid; (ii) The CB filed B/E in the name of wrong person i.e. HSS buyer instead of actual importer; (iii) Customs duty was paid wrongly by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TO DUTY EXEMPTION IT IS ACTUAL DUTY PAYMENT THROUGH OTHER MEANS: Notification No. 91/2009 Cus dated 11.09.2009 Customs Authorities held that M/s TDAAL could not be treated as importer and M/s IDDSL were liable to file the bill of entry and pay customs duty. However, since M/s IDDSL were not in possession of SFIS scrip, they were directed to pay customs duty in cash. The above referred liability of Ms/ IDDSL to pay customs duty in cash rather than by m/s TDAAL through SFIS scrip has been taken by Customs as evidence of attempt to evade customs duty on the part of M/s IDDSL. However, the mode of payment of customs duty whether in cash or through SFIS scrip, by M/s IDDSL or M/s TDAAL cannot determine whether there is an atte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of scrutiny. There is no specific instance regarding violation of Regulation 11(e) in paragraph 12(c). 5. PROVISIONS OF REGULATION 11(m) OF THE CUSTOMS BROKERS LICENSING REGULATIONS FOLLOWED Regulation 11(m) of CBLR, 2013 prescribes that A customs broker shall discharge his duties as a customs broker with utmost speed and efficiency and without any delay. There is no specific instance regarding providing of slow or inefficient service to the clients, in violation of Regulation 11(m). The findings recorded by the Ld. Commissioner are based on the same facts and situation as stated above. 5. On the other hand, Ld. DR has stated that the appellant in this case has himself accepted that there was an error on their part in not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learance from the customs have been diverted to market without being actually used in the process of manufacture under the DEECS scheme. In that case, the CHA was not held to be liable for any action on account of the fact that the clearance of goods have been effected after the assignment there cleared by the CHA. This case also is not having any application in the present case in view of the fact that CHA themselves has accepted the fact that they have admitted the error while submitting the licence SFIS scrip licence which was not applicable in the case of import made by M/s IDDSL therefore we feel that this case law is not at all relevant in the case of appellant. From the perusal of the Appeal record, it is quite clear that CHA on beha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
