Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2021 (9) TMI 1132

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... quantity of tyres as well as of mis-description of imported goods being imported by M/s. Sai Enterprises for M/s. Auto Mart India Ltd., proprietor Shri Navin Kumar. It is observed from the statement of Shri Suryajeet Singh iself, that he has called all the import documents from Shri Navin Kumar and had handed over the same to Shri Santosh Kumar Gupta, G Card holder of CHA to get the clearance of the goods. Statement of said Shri Santosh Kumar Gupta as was recorded on 1.04.2019 reflects that he has acknowledged about never receiving the detailed packing list; that he has not denied the receiving of importing documents from the importing firm. He stated that he never received the detailed packing list from the importer. The negligence .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... L) Shri Awneet Singh, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Ravi Kapoor, Authorised Representative for the Department ORDER The present appeal has been filed against the Order-in-Appeal bearing No. 041-042-2020-21 dated 08.9.2020. The facts, in brief, relevant for the adjudication are as follows: That based upon a specific intelligence about M/s. Sai Enterprises importing branded car tyres under the guise of multi brand and multi size stock let off the road tyre by way of mis declaration and under valuation, the officers of DRI put on hold the import consignment covered under Bill of Entry No. 2585131 dated 26.3.2019 and also covered under Bill of Entry No. 2624519 dated 29.03.2019. On examination 2429 tyres were found .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ise have diligently verified and fulfilled all KYC norms and then asked for a 100% examination. It is mentioned that Commissioner (Appeals) has duly accepted the contentions of the appellants, still has not fully absolved them from penalty imposed by the original adjudicating authority. The imposition of penalty is otherwise on the basis of notional violation of CBLR which is outside the scope of duty of CHA. The order under challenge is accordingly, prayed to be set aside, appeal is prayed to be allowed. 4. Per contra, learned Authorised Representative has mentioned that it was incumbent duty of CHA only to verify the products imported not only those the duty was to warn importer to not to import the prohibited goods under the garb of m .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed packing list from the importer. He further acknowledged that he used to file Bill of Entry without asking for the detailed packing list. He also has accepted having knowledge of excess quantity and mis-declaration committed by the importer. Shri R K Sharma, Proprietor of Sharma Enterprises, CHA also has acknowledged to pass on the import documents without any verification. He also, therefore, failed to ask for detailed packing list from the importer. Though both of them denied any violation of CBLR on their part but the aforenoticed observations amounts to foregoing the mandatory duty casted upon the CHA firm by the Customs Broker Licence Regulations (CBLR). Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs Versus K.M. Ganatra .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... eals) and accordingly have no reason to differ therefrom. Though only challenge of the appellant is that penalty cannot be imposed under the provisions of Customs Act on account of noticed violation of CBLR, to my opinion, said argument does not support the appellant s case. The penalties on Shri Santosh Kumar Gupta, CHA and G Card holder have been imposed under section 112(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 and upon Shri R K Sharma, under section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962. The penalty under section 112 is for improper importation of goods and apparently the facts of the present appeals reflect the improper importation of goods that too the prohibited goods. Hence, I find no infirmity when penalty under section 112 (b)(i) has been imposed in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates