TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 1149X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are no complaints. There is no case for the department that the bill of lading with regard to Container No. FCIU9286908 for M/s. Sky and Sea Exports detained by SIIB was filed by the appellant or Sathish Kumar. The appellant had nothing to do with such import of goods by M/s. Sky and Sea Exports. For the mere reason that the appellant had filed earlier bills of entry for M/s. Sky and Sea Exports cannot be a ground to hold that the appellant has violated provisions of CBLR when the goods relating to the 10 bills of entry have been cleared and without any compliants. Bill of entry filed for M/s. Raj Enterprises dated 19.5.2017 - HELD THAT:- Without proving the entire link between these persons the appellant cannot be implicated only for the mere reason that they have filed the bill of entry. So also there is no evidence to prove that appellant allowed other persons to work customs clearance activities or that to file forged documents. There are no evidence to 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 CF ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om 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 that he had verified with the antecedents of the importer and possessed all KYC documents; that he did not know the owners of M/s. Sky and Sea Exports and that it would be known only to Sathish Kumar; that consideration of ₹ 1,000/- was offered for each bill of entry filed by Sathish Kumar. It was further stated on 17.1.2018 that Shri Sathish Kumar had come to his office and filed the bills of entry using his digital signature. From the above, it appeared to the department that the appellant contravened the provisions of CBLR, 2013 under Regulation 11(a), (b), (k) and (n). 4. Another case against the appellant revealed by SIIB is narrated as under: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ings 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 said consignment. There is no duty or obligation cast on the appellant in respect of the above container. Even though the appellant filed bill of entry in respect of goods imported in Container No. WHLU5385462 for bill of entry dated 19.5.2017 on behalf of M/s. Raj Enterprises, the appellant has nothing to do with the alleged illegal removal of the goods from the CFS area. The Show Cause Notice itself states that the goods in container was removed from the CFS area by one Shri Umesh at the instructions of Shri Hari Prabhu and Shri Thirumalai Thiagarajan of M/s. Raj Brothers Shipping Pvt. Ltd. They are themselves Custom Brokers. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng 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. CESTAT, Chennai 2014 (310) ELT 673 (Mad.) which was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as reported in 2015 (325) ELT A48 (SC). c. A.M. Ahmed Co. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai 2014 (309) ELT 433 (Mad.) d. Sowparnika Shipping Services Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai 2017 (352) ELT 286 (Mad.) e. Necko Freight Forwarders Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs 2018 (360) ELT 879 (Del.) 14. The ld. AR Ms. T. Usha Devi appeared and argued for the respondent. She supported the findings in the impugned order. She mostly stressed upon the 108 statement given by Shri A.C. Hari Babu, owne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the appellant collected ₹ 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 ₹ 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 that appellant did not collect KYC documents etc., all the goods as per these previous 10 bills of entry which have been for M/s. Sky and Sea Exports have been cleared and there are no complaints. There is no case for the department that the bill of lading with regard to Container No. FCIU9286908 for M/s. Sky and Sea Exports detained by SIIB was filed by the appellant or Sathish Kumar. The appellant had nothing to do with such import of goods by M/s. Sky and Sea Exports. For the mere reason that the appellant had filed earlier bills of entry for M/s. Sky and Sea Exports cannot be a gro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
