9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1189X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anasonic High Definition Video Cameras; Phantom 4 pro DJI Drone; branded Wrist watches; Sony HDR CX405 Handy Cam/4K Handy Cam FDR; Samsung Galaxy S5/S6/Note 4/J-7; I-Phone 6/6S/ 6Plus/5s; 360 degree panoramic intelligent camera; branded 320 GB Internal Hard Disc; Branded Sports Shoes and Glass Chattons etc. were found, which were not declared before the Customs authorities at the time of clearance. Two more consignments covered under Bills of Entry No. 8709104 and 8707042, both dated 28/02/2017, imported by M/s Logitrade Impex Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and cleared by the appellants were presented by Shri Surender on 01/03/2017 on examination and on comparison of declared weight and the weight found during examination by DRI there was a difference of 268 Kgs. (in respect of 187 Pkts.) and 60 Kgs. (in respect of 115 Pkts.). In the case of 187 Pkts., comparison of marking present on said pkts., revealed non existence of certain packets which were not present in the Packing List. That the packing list for 115 Pkts. was not produced by the CB despite being demanded by the officers. On the basis of an enquiry conducted against the CB his CB licence has been revoked and his security deposit of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imports made by M/s Excel Enterprises, M/s S.G. International, M/s Logitrade Impex Solutions Pvt. Ltd and Other importers through Delhi Air Cargo (Import). From various statements of IEC holders, it appeared that they (M/s Excel Enterprises, M/s S.G. international, M/s Logitrade Impex Solutions Pvt. Ltd and other importers) did not engage the appellant for Customs clearance related work and the appellant and their representatives failed to produce such authorization at the time of examination. The IEC holder of the other two import firms M/s Excel Enterprises and M/s S. G. International had even denied to be aware of these imports and admitted that their IECs were being misused by some other person i.e. Shri Amardeep by paying some monetary consideration to them. Further, during the search of the declared office premises i.e. L-74/284, Street No. 7, Pandit Jagannath Complex, Mahipalpur, Delhi-37, on 28/02/2017 (the office premises declared by Shri Surender Kumar claiming to authorized representative of the appellant), no relevant documents like KYC documents and file of earlier imports clearance made by the appellant were found. The adjudicating authority has further observed that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ance of the impugned consignments without obtaining any authorization from the importers and that the director of the Appellant did not present himself before the investigation agency as well as did not submit the required authorization and KYC documents of the importers he argued that no authorization and KYC were demanded by DRI from Appellant at the time of investigation of the case. That as and when the appellant was asked to join investigation proceedings, he dutifully appeared before Investigating Team and tendered his true statement. That That on 08/03/2017, DRI informed the authorized person Shri Surinder Singh to remain 'present in his office at Mahipalpur with authorizations and KYC of importers concerned but DRI Officers neither visited the office premises of the authorized person nor ordered to submit the authorization and KYC documents to the respective office of DRI. They also did not visit the office of Appellant. That the allegation that the Appellant had not obtained any authorization from importers is not sustainable in the eyes of law as the authorizations and KYC documents were with the Appellant. Refuting the charge of violation under Regulation 11(d), argu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le packet was found short when examined by the DRI with respect to goods covered Bill of Entry Nos. 8700104 and 8707042 and that the Customs Duty assessed is on the basis of numbers and not weight. Further refuting the charge of violation of Regulation 11(n) that the Appellant failed to present KYC documents to the investigating agency; and that the Appellant has not verified that antecedents, correctness of IEC Number, identity of his client and functioning' of his client at the declared address by using reliable, independent, authentic documents, data or information he argued that the findings are against facts as before filing respective bill of entry, the Appellant verified the documents supplied by the importers such as IEC, Pan Card, Voter Card, Vat Registration and obtained the authority letter from importers and being completely satisfied with the documents filed the bills of entry in question, that the Appellant verified the documents from the website of DGFT and other Departments and then only filed the concerned bills of entry and that it is also wrong to say that the companies were existing on paper only because Officers of DRI had investigated the office premises o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cealed/misdeclared were removed clandestinely from the import consignments however the complicity or direct involvement of the CB or his representative does not get substantiated. We also find that there is nothing on record to suggest that any mis-declaration with respect to the consignments examined under Bill of Entry no. 8710782 dated 28/02/2017 and 8710323 dated 28/02/2017 was in the knowledge of the CB or his authorized representative Mr. Ajesh Kumar, the G Card Holder or even Mr. Surender Kumar who represented before the Investigating Authorities on behalf of the CB. Thus the charge of failure to advise the client to comply with Regulation 11(d) or the charge of concealment of any document etc. as per regulation 11(j) does not hold good as these charges are not substantiated by any positive evidence with respect to knowledge of the CB or circumstantial evidence like extra pecuniary gain etc. However, we find that the learned advocate has failed to give any plausible explanation with respect to authorizing of Shri Surender Kumar who was not his employee and neither a G Card Holder or H card Holder to represent on him on his behalf or conduct a business through him. This facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
