Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2018 (12) TMI 669

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... because the Custom Broker has filed the address which appears in the IEC code. Principles of natural justice - Held that:- There is a violation of principles of natural justice and the impugned order has been passed without giving proper opportunity of hearing to the appellant. The finding of the Commissioner that the Custom Broker has not applied for renewal is factually incorrect - the forfeiture of security and imposition of penalty on the appellant is not sustainable and is set aside. The Commissioner is directed to examine his application for renewal of licence and decide the same in accordance with law - appeal allowed by way of remand. - C/23262/2014-DB; C/21534/2015 - Final Order No. 21867-21868/2018 - Dated:- 11-12-2018 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... stead of correct classification under CTH 3808 and further allegation against the appellant is that the modus operandi was adopted to evade payment of duty and to circumvent restriction on import of insecticides in terms of the Foreign Trade Policy read with the Insecticides Act, 1968. Another allegation against the appellant is that he has not disclosed the correct address of the importer. In view of these allegations, the Jt. Commissioner, ICD, Bangalore suspended the licence under the provisions of Regulation 19(1) of the CBLR, 2013 vide Order of Suspension dt. 25/08/2014 and the Commissioner of Customs, vide Order-in-Original dt. 10/09/2014 further ordered the continued suspension till further orders. The said order of the Commissioner .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ied it, it does not amount of misclassification. He further submitted that the appellant has classified the goods on the basis of the instructions given by the importer and it is the importer who is solely responsible for all the acts. He further submitted that the charge on the appellant that he failed to advise his clients to declare correct description and correct classification of the imported goods in compliance of the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 and failed to bring the non-compliance to the notice of the Deputy / Assistant Commissioner of Customs is not tenable in law. He further submitted that in this case, the importer knew the description and classification and the appellant bona fidely believed that there is no non-complia .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ve instructions from Shri N.A. Jayaram and has failed to exercise supervision to ensure the proper conduct of the employees, the appellant submitted that Shri N.A. Jayaram is the authorized representative of M/s. Aashutosh Pharmalabs and is the son of Mr. N.S. Kumarasamy, the proprietor. Further even the Department has also taken the statement of Shri N.A. Jayaram and further the appellant is only a facilitator between the Department and the importer and he does not have power to prevent any person on behalf of the importer / exporter. He further submitted that from the very beginning, the Revenue was biased against the appellant and that is why they have not given him the hearing and the case was decided in violation of the principles of n .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mposed the penalty. He further submitted that the Commissioner has observed that the appellant has not applied for renewal of the said licence. 6. After considering the submissions of both sides and perusal of the material on record, we find that the allegation against the appellant is that he has declared only the chemical name of the goods and not the trade name of the goods imported. In our opinion, this allegation does not have any force because the appellant has declared the classification as per the direction of the importer and if there is a wrong classification as per the Department, then they should take it against the importer because on the same classification earlier also, the importer has imported the goods. Further we find .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates