TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 962X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the Bills of Entry was not the same as was reflected in those Bills of Entry. Accordingly, the respondent has contravened the provisions of Regulation 12(1) (v) of CIER.2010. It is also observed that to ascertain as to whether the imported goods indeed reached the declared importers, a verification of genuineness of the PODs (Proof of Deliveries), submitted by the authorized courier and KYC was carried out by the Commissioner of Customs, ACC (Export), New Delhi through the jurisdictional Commissionerate(s) - Failure of delivery of the consignment to the consignee or denial of receipt of the consignment by the consignee that the addresses were found bogus during verification of genuineness of the PODs, proves that the imported goods were never destined to the consignees named in the BOEs and have been intentionally diverted. 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 so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e provisions laid in the Notification No.07/98-Customs (NT) dated 9.11.1998. On 23.04.2018, an information was received that the respondent was using one Aadhar No.233962343459 repeatedly with different Bills of Entry (BOE) for import of parcels through courier and it was found 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 matc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er instruction of the company. It is also apparent admission of the G-Card holder of the respondent that KYC s of the consignee were not properly maintained in the company office. It is also impressed upon that the original adjudicating authority has miserably failed to take into 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsignments were bogus/fictitious but the report has been ignored by the adjudicating authority. The report sufficiently reveals that the obligations under impugned Regulation have been so violated by the respondent that it amounts to intentional misconduct. Imposition of penalty is therefore 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 sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Company (including the present respondent) to convert Excel input into XML file that can be used for bulk uploading of data to ECCS server for filing of Courier Bills of Entry. Further Mr.Murugan explained that if any courier company wanted to edit any information in XML File generated by the software, 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 beco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 12(1)(iv) requires an authorised courier to verify the antecedents, correctness of IEC number, identity of his client and the functioning of his client in the declared address by using reliable, independent, authentic documents, date or information. In the normal course, this would be easy for any courier because it has to finally deliver the goods by itself at the declared address of the consignee after clearance from the customs. In this case, instead, 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 consi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
