9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 962X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sited upon them is disproportionate to the circumstances that led to initiating of proceedings particularly as it involved only one among the several bills of entry filed by different brokers on behalf of a single importer and, that too, for alleged undervaluation. According to him, the proceedings were premature as show cause notice, in which the appellant herein has been placed on notice for imposition of penalty, issued on 16th August, 2017 under section 124 of Customs Act, 1962 is, as yet, pending for adjudication. 2. It would appear that the appellant had, on behalf of M/s Forus Enterprises, allegedly fronting for the beneficiary importer, Shri Anil Kumar Vachhar and with whom alone they had dealt, filed bill of entry for the import o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... export code (IEC)'is fictitious and, furthermore, that Revenue has not sustained any loss in view of the duty differential having been made good by the importer. It was also submitted by him that redetermination of declared value of Rs.12,77,228/- toRs.79,37,969/- involved differential duty of onlyRs.19,41,370/- which does not justify even forfeiture of security deposit with penalty of Rs.50,000/- let alone loss of livelihood by revocation of licence. 4. Learned Authorized Representative drew our attention to the impugned order in which the attempt of Shri Anil Kumar Vachhar to undervalue imported goods with intent to evade duty of Rs.54,07,368/- was narrated along with the alleged role of the appellant, one among the several customs brok ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ning that '8. The view taken by all the three authorities below is incapable of being described as perverse finding of fact. When once the IEC is allowed to be used by someone else, the associated risks could be understood to have been well within the realm of knowledge of such an individual. In that view of the matter, we think that for the acts of lending IEC, rubber stamp and letterheads of the firm, the consequences which follow from Sections 113 and 114 of the said Act, cannot be avoided. 9. However, what still remains to be examined by us is the justification behind the adjudicating authority in imposing a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- on the appellant before us, while all others, including the individual who has misused the IEC of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ker Licensing Regulations, 2013, held that, while the breach of several of the obligations in regulation no. 11 had been substantiated, that failure to discharge duties with speed, as stipulated in regulation no. 11(m), was not, the licensing authority did, nonetheless, consider it fit to disregard that finding to conclude that the acceptance of documents from an unrelated person was indication of inefficiency but for which loss of revenue could have been avoided. We also take note that it is the admitted lack of contact with the importer on record, Shri Balam Singh Rawat, and the obtaining of the authorization and documentation from Shri Anil Kumar Vachhar, the beneficiary importer, which is the foundation for every finding of breach susta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... separate finding of the breach, the licensing authority failed to evince any acceptable reasons for such. In our view, this breach does not sustain. There is no doubt that the appellant did not have any contact with the importer on record and, consequently, there can be no scope for imparting any information to the importer which may conceivably be held as having led to breach of regulation no. 11(e) of Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013. Likewise, rendering advice to the client is just as inconceivable indicating the lack of scope for any breach of the obligation prescribed in regulation 11(d). It is seen from the visual evaluation of the signatures that forgery is also not in evidence. Nevertheless, the licensing authority did pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to Revenue arising, directly or indirectly, from that breach. 7. The appellant has dealt with only one bill of entry out of the several that were taken up for investigation and included in the show cause notice issued under Customs Act, 1962. The allegation against the imports is limited to undervaluation and it is difficult for us to appreciate that the breach of regulation no. 11(a) had, in any way, contributed to suppression of the value of the goods imported against the bill of entry. It is not within the remit of the customs broker to be conversant with the negotiations on price or the manner of transference of agreed recompense and, therefore, compliance with the said obligations would not have altered the allegations leveled agains ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
