9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 1149X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the container was detained and lying at Viking CFS. However, on 25.10.2017, it was noticed that the same container was removed illegally from Viking CFS by forging the import clearance documents. On investigation, it was found that M/s. Sky and Sea Exports had filed 25 bills of entry. Out of these 25 previous bills of entry, it was seen that 12 bills of entry were filed by Shri Shiva Ambica Clearing and Forwarding Pvt. Ltd. and 10 bills of entry were filed by HSN Shipping Pvt. Ltd., the appellant herein, and 2 bills of entry were field by Trade Wings Logistics India Pvt. Ltd. And one bill of entry by M/s. Insoorya Exports. 3. Statements were recorded from Shri A.C. Hari Babu, owner of HSN Shipping Pvt. Ltd. (appellant). In his statement dated 15.11.2017, Shri A.C. Hari Babu stated inter alia, that the bills of entry of M/s. Sky and Sea Exports were filed by one Shri Sathish Kumar in the name of his company; that in all those bills of entry Shri Sathish Kumar would attend to all the work in respect of customs clearance such as meeting the importer, collection of documents, filing bill of entry, assessment, examination, payment of duty and delivery; that Sathish Kumar told him t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... faked the customs out of charge documents and paid for the CFS operations running into lakhs in cash. 8. Show Cause Notice dated 17.5.2018 was issued to the appellant herein calling upon to show cause within 30 days as to why the license issued to them should not be revoked and security deposited by them should not be forfeited or penalty should not be imposed upon them. An inquiry officer was nominated to conduct inquiry and the report was submitted by the said officer on 8.10.2018. The inquiry officer recommended for revocation of license and forfeiture of security deposit and for imposing penalty. Thereafter adjudication proceedings were completed and the authority below ordered for revocation of license, forfeiture of security deposited and also imposed penalty. Against this order, the appellant is now before this Tribunal. 9. On behalf of the appellant ld. Counsel Shri N. Viswanathan appeared and argued the matter. It is submitted by him that the Commissioner ought to have seen that the Show Cause Notice itself states that in respect of Container No. FCIU 9286908 no bill of entry has been filed by the appellant herein. The appellant was not a Custom broker in respect of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntry is for persons having identity cards issued by the customs. 13. The Commissioner ought to have appreciated that in respect of the bill of entry filed by them for M/s. Sky and Sea Exports and for M/s. Raj Enterprises on earlier occasions, there was no allegation of any wrong doing. Further, there is no evidence to suggest that the appellant allowed these persons to access to the appellant's system or password thereby causing any revenue loss to the Government. The bills of entry for these earlier occasions were duly examined, assessed and cleared as per law. Therefore, such bills of entry cannot be a ground for alleging or holding that the appellant has contravened the provisions of CBLR. There is nothing on record to show that the appellant's activities were handled by Sathish Kumar and Syed Muyeen Ahmed as alleged in the Show Cause Notice. The entire Show Cause Notice is based on presumptions and assumption. The findings recorded by the Commissioner is erroneous and he prayed that the same may be set aside. The ld. Counsel relied on the following judgments:- a. CCE, Bangalore Vs. Brindavan Beverages P. Ltd. - 2007 (213) ELT 487 (SC) b. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai Vs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r / goods. 17. The first case is with regard to the goods imported by M/s. Sky and Sea Exports in regard to Container No. FCIU9286908. With regard to this case in respect of M/s. Sky and Sea Exports, it is seen that the appellant has been implicated for the reason that 10 earlier bills of entry were filed by the appellant herein as Custom Broker for M/s. Sky and Sea Exports. It is the case of the department that the appellant had allowed one Sathish Kumar to file bill of entry and do customs clearance related activities for M/s. Sky and Sea Exports using appellants identity as Custom Broker. That the appellant collected Rs. 1,000/- per bill of entry from Sathish Kumar. Apart from 108 statement of the Shri A.C. Hari Babu, the department has not been able to adduce any evidence to support such allegation that instead of the appellant herein, Sathish Kumar had done the filing of bill of entry and the clearance activities. So also there is no evidence to show the passing of consideration of Rs. 1,000/- per bill of entry from Sathish Kumar to the appellant herein. Although it is alleged that earlier the 10 bills of entry for M/s. Sky and Sea Exports were filed by Shri Sathish Kumar and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... show that the appellant engaged unauthorized persons who faked customs out of charge documents and also paid for the CFS operations running into lakhs in cash. There is no evidence before us to show any payment made for CFS operations or the faking of customs out of charge documents by the appellant herein. However, unlike the first case of M/s. Sky and Sea Exports, in this case, the appellant has acted as Custom Broker and has filed the bill of entry for M/s. Raj Enterprises. The container got detained and appellant ought to have been careful till the goods are cleared. However, the omission would not call for a harsh punishment of revocation of licence. We therefore are of the considered opinion that mere forfeiture of security deposit as well as penalty would suffice.
19. From the discussions made above, we hold that the impugned order is to be modified to the extent of setting aside the revocation of licence of the appellant. We make it clear that we do not disturb the forfeiture of security deposit or the penalty of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) imposed. Appeal partly allowed in above terms.
(Pronounced in open court on 26.02.2021) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
