9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 695X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t International, vide Bill of Entry No.2465504 dated 15.07.2017, imported goods were examined by the officers of Preventive Commissionerate, New Customs House, New Delhi; it was found that the declared items were sought by 42,200 Nos. and undeclared items like Holograms, Hands Free Packing materials for hands free, Speaker attachment i.e. Jali (Bose), LCD and touch screen, LCD for 4s and 5s I-Phone, Touch LCD 6", Glamcomm matte lipstick, Nike Running/ Zoom shoes, shoes of Adidas Equipment (made in Vietnam and wrist watch of Rolex, Michael Kors, Police, Ulysee Nardin, Hublot, Rado, Tissot, Fossil, Emporio, Armani, Cartier, Tag, Heuher, DIOR-VIII were found; total value was found to be Rs.73,74,526/-; the goods were seized; on culmination of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion No.15808/2022 filed by Shri Naman Gupta; in Appeal No. CUSAA/2022 filed by M/s D.S. Cargo Agency and in Appeal No. CUSAA 01/2016 filed by M/s Kunal Travels (Cargo). 3. Shri Anurag Kumar, assisted by Shri Harish Kapoor, learned Authorized Representatives for the Department, submits that the appellant was earlier involved in cases of mis-declaration by Shri Surender Kumar Jain vide Bill of Entry No.2466446 dated 15.07.2017 by M/s Roop Singh Enterprises vide Bill of Entry No.2447706 dated 14.07.2017; though CESTAT set aside the order of revocation, vide Order-in-Original dated 05.09.2018, vide Order dated 21.05.2019, the same has been challenged before the Hon'ble High Court by the Department. He takes us through the different Regulations ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... did not apprise the importer of various Rules, Procedures and Prohibitions thereof. We find that except for bald allegation no evidence has been adduced to allege that the Custom Broker had the previous knowledge of mis-declaration of the value and contents of the consignment. Department merely mentions that the value declared was three and odd lakhs of rupees whereas the actual value was more than Rs.75 Lakhs and the fact in itself shows the culpability of the Custom Broker. We do not accept this contention as it is not alleged with any evidence. The previous knowledge of the Custom Broker, in the acts of omission and commission of the importer, i.e. Mens Rea is not established. It is not even alleged that the Custom Broker had obtained an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
