9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 205X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lls of entry declaring the goods as cold rolled coil (non-alloy) alongwith invoices, test certificate and other relevant documents for clearance of the same. After filing bills of entry, the importer filed a declaration that the exporter has intimated to the appellant that the goods is of prime in nature. Thereafter, the goods were examined and found to be prime in nature, therefore, a case has been booked against the importer for mis-declaration of the goods to evade payment of duty on the said goods. A show cause notice was also issued to the appellant alleging that the appellant being an experienced customs broker was expected to understand the difference between prime material and secondary/defective material. Therefore, it was alleged ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en alleged that the test certificate attached with the bills of entry show that there is a variation in thickness/width and length of CR coil sheets and their weight is below the prescribed norms of prime goods, but it was not alleged in the show cause notice, therefore, the adjudicating authority has gone beyond the scope of the show cause notice. He further relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Import) vs. Trinetra Impex Pvt. Ltd. 2020 (372) ELT 332 (Del.). He also relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of P. S. Bedi & Company vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi 2001 (133) ELT 86 (Tri. Del.). He further submits that reliance made by the Revenue in the case of Kwick H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is duty and responsibility to comply with the law on importability of the goods and to advise the client accordingly. Therefore, the penalty is rightly imposed on the appellant. 5. Heard both sides and perused the case records in detail and examined the arguments advanced before me. 6. I find that in show cause notice, the allegation against the appellant is that the appellant being customs broker had filed 4 bills of entry for clearance of consignment of cold rolled coil (non-alloy) and cold rolled sheets (non-alloy) of prime nature which were found on examination as secondary and defective nature and the appellant being an experienced customs broker was expected to understand the difference between prime material and secondary & defecti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to him by the importer. There is no sufficient material on record to show that the CHA was actively involved in the fraudulent availment of the exemption by the importer, warranting levy of personal penalty. Therefore, we do not find any ground to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal vis-a vis the respondent. Therefore, the penalty is imposable on the appellant. 9. Further, in the case of P. S. Bedi & Company (supra) this Tribunal again has observed as under:- 5. Considering the submissions, I not that, before proceeding to impose a penalty on the CHA under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act, it is incumbent on the Departmental authorities to record a finding in the first instance that some commission or omission of the CHA had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
