Case Law Details
HLPL Global Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Vs CC, New Delhi (CESTAT Delhi)
We are in agreement with the finding of the ld. Adjudicating authority that CHA helps not properly verified the functioning of the client from at the declared address by using reliable independent and authenticate documents. This was a serious lapse on part of the CHA in verifying the KYC before taking up the Customs clearance of consignment of rough diamond imported by M/s Neotex Exim Pvt. Ltd. The appellants, considering the nature of the imported goods i.e. rough diamond, would have exercised more vigilant approach before taking up the consignment for Customs clearance after verification of KYC norms of the importer, which has not been done in this case. It is stated by the ld. Advocate that the order of the adjudicating authority has failed to discuss the various case law and their relevance in the case at hand. We find that the adjudicating authority has dealt with each and every case law cited by them at length and concluded that those are not relevant in the fact and circumstances of the present case.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT JUDGMENT
These appeals are filed against the common adjudication order No. 12/2017 dated 27.10.2017 passed by the Commissioner, Customs, New Customs House, New Delhi. Vide the impugned order, the appellant No. 1 – M/s HLPL was imposed a penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs and appellant No. 2 – Shri Ashok Sharma was imposed penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs under the provisions of Section 114AA of Customs Act, 1962 (Act, for short).
2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant, a CHA firm had been appointed by the importer viz. Newtex Exim Pvt. Ltd., 1077, Gandhi Gali, Fatehpuri, Delhi-110006 for clearance of their cargo. The appellant is a company having its Director Mr. Ashok Sharma and engaged in the business of Custom House Agent service for which licence has been issued to them by Commissioner (Import & General), New Delhi, under Regulation 9(1) of CHALR, 2004 Licensing Regulation having its validity till 9.10.2022. The appellant was engaged by importer M/s Newtex Exim Pvt. Ltd. for the clearance of their consignment of rough diamond. The appellant has taken the necessary documents required for the purpose of Customs clearance and KYC norms such as IEC certificate, address proof, identity proof, (PAN Card, Voter ID or passport), bank statement, bank attested signature of the proprietor/company of the importer firm. The appellant, after verifying and satisfying themselves all these documents, have filed the Bill of Entry No. 4314276 dated 10.1.2004 for clearance of rough diamond imported on behalf of their client, M/s Neotex Exim Pvt. Ltd. However, the consignment was detained by the Commissioner of Customs for the alleged undervaluation and subsequently the valuation of the imported consignment was determined by the jewellery appraiser on 10.2.2010. It was found, on examination, that the declared value of imported item i.e. rough diamond was highly inflated in the said Bill of Entry filed for the clearance of the goods. As per the jewellery appraiser, the actual value of the consignment was to the extent of USD 14,297 instead of the declared value of USD 88,641.40. After having a preliminary scrutiny of the documents, the case was transferred by the Commissionerate, to Department of Revenue, Intelligence (DRI), New Delhi for further investigation. During the course of enquiry by the DRI, it was alleged that the CHA company also was involved in the case of overvaluation of the import consignment, which was on the basis of report received from the Jewellery Expert. It was alleged that the CHA/Director failed to verify the KYC norms under the CHALR, 2004 and therefore, a Show Cause Notice bearing No. 33A/XI/32/2013-CI(NEO)/428 dated 29.1.2015 was issued to them asking as to why penalty should not be imposed on them under Section 112(a) & (b), (iii) and (iv) and under Section 114AA of the Customs Act. The case was adjudicated by the impugned adjudication order and the appellants were imposed a penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs in case of the appellant No. 1 (HLPL) under Section 114AA of the Act and Rs. 5 lakhs on Appellant No. 2 (Shri Ashok Sharma) under the provisions of Section 114AA of the Act.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
