9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 962X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... und to have used 22433 times during the period from November 2017 to March 2018. Pursuant to said information, search was conducted at the premises of the respondent, no documents pertaining to KYCs (Know Your Customers) and POD (proof of delivery) were found. Proceedings were recorded under panchnama dated 23.4.2018. Statements of various concerned including G-Card Holder of the respondent, Shri Tikaram, of Shri Atish Mohanty, partner of respondent, of Shri A.Murugan, proprietor of Femtosoft Technologies and of Project Manager of M/s.Wipro Ltd., Shri Vikash Kaushik were recorded. The respondent vide letter dated 11.6.2018 submitted some documents including PODs alongwith Bills of Entry and KYC document of the consignees. It was found that aforementioned Aadhar number was used as KYC for several BOE's for different consignees. It was also found that GSTN No. given in BOEs i.e. Aadhar No.233962343459 did not match with the copy of KYC document attached with the respective BOE. 4. Verification of genuineness of POD was also conducted by the jurisdictional Commissinerate and the PODs were found forged. Most of the addresses were fictitious and the consignments were found bogus. The v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consideration clear admission and other cogent evidence on record which have sufficiently proved the alleged violation of provisions of CIER Regulations, 2010. The order under challenge is accordingly prayed to be set aside and appeal is prayed to be allowed in terms of observations made in the impugned review order. 7. While rebutting these submissions, ld.Counsel for the respondent-assessee has submitted that Rule 12 (iv) of Regulation of CIER, 2010 has not been violated by the respondent as there was sufficient verification done about antecedents and identity with respect to five consignments. The respondent has exercised due diligence to ascertain the correctness of information in regard to alleged five consignments. The respondent also submits that all subject consignments were non commercial in nature. These were basically gift items imported from middle-east meant for dependent members of family of the respective consignor. Therefore, question of any loss of customs duty, does not arise. The allegations that KYC did not tally with the names mentioned in the Bills of Entry are vehemently denied by the respondent submitting that KYC as were received from sender on email, were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re alleged to be highly disproportionate to the fraudulent act committed by the respondent. 12. From the admissions as observed above, in our opinion, it also becomes apparent fact that the respondent has failed to verify the correctness of IEC code and even identity of its clients. The respondent was aware of the use of same Aadhaar Number for all BOEs still the Authorized Courier nor to verify the said Aadhaar Number or did not verify the antecedent, correctness of Import Export Code (IEC) number, identity of its client. Further, the respondent during the time of uploading of the Bill of Entry failed to take note that the data entered was not correct. The respondent did not inform the Custom Department that KYC details filed in the Bill of Entry was not the same which was received via email in respect of any given import. G.card holder of respondent, Shri Tikaram has also admitted in his statement dated 23.04.2018 that KYCs of the consignee were not properly maintained in the company office. Investigation also revealed that the GSTIN given in the BOEs i.e. the Aadhaar No.233962343459 did not match with the copy of the KYC document attached with the BOEs filed by the respondent. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ware, the right has been given to the courier company who before uploading the same to ECCS Server, company could check any data/information in XML File and if it is desired it can change the data or undo any error that may be detected. Shri A.Murugan categorical reported that the fields "GSTIN Type" GSTIN Number" were kept constant with values "Aadhar Number "233962343459" as per direction of the respondent. This particular deposition corroborated the indulgence of respondent in the alleged act. Also there is absence on the part of the respondent to bring to the notice of all concerned including competent authority about repeated use of one and same Aadhar number at different occasions for the different consignees. Respondent gave no information about the said mistake to the department nor ever took the plea that it was happening due to software error. From said statements above, it becomes clear that software was so designed under the instructions of respondent. GSTIN field showing Aadhaar number was directed by the respondent himself to be kept constant while software was developed. The edit option was with the respondent. He has failed to upload the correct edited information. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tead, the appellant has facilitated imports and attempted to obtain clearance of the goods in the name of many consignees whose IEC did not match with the respective KYC. Thus, we hold that the appellant has violated Regulation 12(1)(iv) of CIER, 2010. 19. Regulation 12(1) (v) requires the couriers to exercise due diligence to ascertain the correctness and completeness of any information which he submits to the proper officer with reference to any work related to the clearance of imported goods or of export goods. In this case, the appellant has intentionally filed documents (BOEs) to clear the goods by mis-declaring the names of the consignees and consignors and by knowingly using same GSTIN for all BOEs meant for different consignees, without informing the same to the proper officer. Respondent has knowingly violated this Regulation as well. 20. Regulation 12(1)(x) requires authorised courier to abide by all the provisions of the Act and the rules, regulations and notifications and orders issued thereunder. In this case the appellant has actively violated the provisions of the act and rules by knowingly filing the bills of entry in the name of wrong consignees by using wrong KY ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
