9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 1264X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hority has failed to appreciate the statements on record as a whole as discussed above. As observed above, if the statements would have been read as a whole, apparently there is no violation of 10 (d) and 10 (n) of CBLR, 2018 is observed to have been committed by the appellant. For the above reasons, the order under challenge is hereby set aside. Consequent thereto the appeal stands allowed." 2. The facts as are necessary for deciding the controversy at hand are that an information was received by the Officers of DRI that one Sandeep Jain was engaged in the import of Water Treatment Membranes by resorting to mis-declaration and gross under valuation of an intent to evade appropriate customs duty. The intelligence further indicated that Sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... STAT has tendered the Impugned Order without appreciating the Statement of Shri Hoshiar Singh, Director of M/s NPL Impex Pvt. Ltd dated 04.07.2018 wherein it has been categorically admitted that the CB did not comply with the provisions of CBLR, 2018 and/or CBLR 2013 in relation to its dealings with Shri Sandeep Jain and associated namesake importers including M/s Arvi International, M/s. Sunshine Enterprises, M/s. Swift Enterprises and M/s. Aahana International? B) Whether the Hon'ble CESTAT failed to appreciate that the actions of the Respondent were completely contrary to and in violation of Regulations l0(d) and 10 (n) of CBLR, 2018 and/or Regulation 11 of CBLR, 2013? C) Whether the Hon'ble CESTAT was right in setting asid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... als of importer companies. It is thus submitted that CESTAT has not duly appreciated the facts and merits of the case and therefore CESTAT order is misplaced and not in consonance with law. 9. Challenge to the impugned final order is against the finding returned qua Regulation 10 (d) and 10 (n). Regulation 10 (d) of the CBLR is reproduced as under:- "10 (d) advise his client to comply with the provisions of the Act, other allied Acts and the rules and regulations thereof, and in case of non-compliance, shall bring the matter to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be." 10. Taking note that the Adjudicating Authority confirmed the violation of Regulation 10 (d) on the bas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... record of order under challenge Para 7 thereof that appellant had provided all the requisite documents to the investigating authorities as and when those were asked initially in October, 2018. This statement was even prior dated 04.07.2018 when he disclosed all the facts to the investigating agencies. In the light of these observations, we hold that appellant has not violated Regulation 10 (d) of CBLR, 2018." 11. Regulation 10 (n) reads as under:- "10 (n) Verify correctness of Importer Exporter Code (IEC) number, Goods and Services Tax Identification Number (GSTIN), identity of his client and functioning of his client at the declared address by using reliable, independent, authentic documents, data or information." 12. The Adjudicati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espite that all statements as got recorded during investigation, when are read as a whole and in the light of the other statements so recorded, it comes as a clear corroborative deposition that the appellant had met the IEC holders, in person. They handed over to him all such documents as are required under KYC guidelines circular and they acknowledged Shri Sandeep Jain to be their representative for all dealings with appellant/CB with respect to the imports to be made by these IEC harder. Once this is the fact then mere knowledge that Shri Sandeep Jain was the representative of the importing firms does not amount to the violation of 10 (n) especially when the IEC holders were found available. 20. Further, we are of the opinion that from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods of remaining importing firms. These godowns have been acknowledged by Shri Sandeep Jain. In the given circumstances irrespective Shri Sandeep Jain is admittedly the beneficiary of imports made by six importers but the fact remains is that all importers have requisite documents, all of them are actually existing and it was a consensual arrangement between them and said Shri Sandeep Jain with no benefit to the appellant out of the said arrangement. Appellant otherwise was admittedly having all the requisite documents of these importing firms which he admittedly produced before the department. Thus, we hold that the appellant has not violated Regulation 10 (n) of CBLR, 2018." 13. CESTAT thus found that CB had met the IEC holders in pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
