TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 1198X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be said that the appellant has not acted diligently. In the present case, the main argument put forward by the AR is that the letter dated 14.06.2019 issued to the exporter was replied by the Trichy office of the appellant. This is too flimsy evidence to allege that appellant had connived in the overvaluation of the goods. Merely because a letter by exporter at Delhi is seen dispatched from Trichy postal circle, it cannot be presumed that the appellant has sent it or that appellant has connived with exporter. The allegation against a Customs Broker in involvement of import/export fraud is serious as it affects their livelihood - there are no material sufficient to establish guilt on the part of the appellants. After appreciating the facts and evidence, we hold that the department has failed to establish that the appellants have connived or abetted in the overvaluation of goods and attempted export of the same. There is no iota of evidence to establish that appellants had falsified any documents. The ingredients of section 114A stands un established. Moreover, the invocation of sub-section (3) of section 147 against these appellant is totally erroneous. The impugned order a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , by which it came to light that though supplier and buyer were located in Delhi, the IGST was paid instead of CGST/SGST which was not proper. 4. The Exporter was called upon by letter dated 14.06.2019 to submit their explanation as to the inflated pricing along with necessary document. In turn the exporter vide letter dated 19.06.2019 totally denied the observations made by department and requested for permission to take back the cargo, as the buyer in Hong Kong was reluctant to receive the shipment due to delay. On perusal of the postal letter, it revealed that the letter was dispatched from Postal Circle Trichy, though the sender s address was mentioned as Delhi. 5. Due to non-delivery of letter dated 14.06.2019 to the exporter summons was issued to the exporter through post. An e-mail was also send on 02.07.2019. However, no reply was eceived from the exporter s side. 6. Market enquiry was conducted on 10.07.2019 to ascertain the actual price of the export cargo. It was found that similar goods of quality air filters were sold at Rs. 50/- per piece against the declared value of Rs. 549/- per piece by the exporter which established that the goods were overvalued. The go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... June 2019, the exporter viz., M/s. Swiss global, New Delhi approached the Branch Manager of the appellant for doing the export related activities. Shri Shabeer Ahamed also collected the signed KYC form and entire documents from the exporter. All documents, in the nature of IEC issued by Ministry of Commerce Industry, Bank account details, GST Registration certificate, PAN card Aadhar card of the exporter were obtained before filing the shipping bill. After verifying the documents from websites, the documents were accepted and appellant filed the shipping bills. These shipping bills were filed through e-system duly signed by G-card holder through digital signature. The Ld. Counsel submitted that the copies of the KYC documents were produced before the officers of the department. The same are also filed along with appeal paper book. The allegation of the department that appellant as a CB did not verify KYC of the exporter and that appellant abetted in export of over-invoiced goods so as to earn undue MEIS benefit and refund of IGST are factually baseless. 8.2 Moreover, a Show Cause Notice was issued to the appellant under the CBLR, 2018 alleging violation of the Regulations an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntention to defraud. In the present case, it is alleged by department that the reply sent to the letter issued by department to the exporter having been dispatched from Trichy, the branch office of appellant has abetted the incident of over valuation of goods. The appellant has no knowledge about such letter. Merely, because the letter was dispatched from Trichy it cannot be said that appellant has abetted. No reason to fasten on such serious allegation on the appellant. The Ld. Counsel prayed that the appeals may be allowed. 9. The Ld. Authorized Representative Shri Rudra Pratap Singh appeared and argued on behalf of the department. It is submitted that on careful study of the suppliers invoice it was seen that the goods were supplied to the exporter by M/s Moonlight International, Delhi. When the buyer seller are both situated in Delhi, the sale is considered as an intra-state transaction under the GST Act. The supplier is expected to collect CGST SGST only. But in this case, the invoice showed that the supplier had collected IGST. This would help exporter to seek refund later. Further market enquires revealed that the goods (Air Inlet Automobile spare parts) were Rs. 30 p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The relevant part of the order of the Tribunal reads as under: 6 .. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the Inquiry Report and the impugned order, we find that the Tribunal vide its order dt. 14/07/2020 has considered the alleged violation of Regulations 10(d), 10(n) and 13(7) of CBLR 2018 in respect of the export made by M/s. Swiss Global, New Delhi by various shipping bills filed by the appellant as CHA. After considering the material on record, we, by our detailed order, held that the order dt. 19/05/2020 passed by the Commissioner of Customs upholding the denial of renewal as well as continued suspension of licence was not sustainable in law and we set aside the same. We also noted in our order that when the inquiry was pending, the Commissioner should not have denied the renewal of licence of the appellant for the alleged violation of the CBLR, 2018. Further we find that in the present case, the Department has failed to bring any corroborative evidence or statement of anybody on record to prove that the appellant had Information, knowledge or have connived in the overvaluation of the goods or mis-declaration etc. We also note that the law ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re produced any evidence to show that the CHA knew about the incorrect classification and valuation of the goods. Otherwise also, we observe that the CHA declared the goods in the Bills of Entry based upon the information given to him by the importer and is not expected to investigate and find out the correct classification or value of the goods. In such a scenario, we find no reason to impose penalty upon the appellant. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant. 13.1 Again, the original authority has invoked sub-section (3) of section 147 to hold that the appellant is deemed to be the exporter of goods. The relevant sub-section reads as under:- SECTION 147. Liability of principal and agent . (3) When any person is expressly or impliedly authorised by the owner, importer or exporter of any goods to be his agent in respect of such goods for all or any of the purposes of this Act, such person shall, without prejudice to the liability of the owner, importer or exporter, be deemed to be the owner, importer or exporter of such goods for such purposes including liability therefor under this Act: Provided ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
