Case Law Details
Shyam Singh Vs Commissioner (CESTAT Delhi)
Facts- The appellants are the authorized Customs Broker, of importer M/s. Guru Kripa Overseas, West Patel Nagar, Delhi holder of CB licence No. R-09/DEL/Cus/2010 valid upto 22.2.2020. Later filed BOE No. 3590163 dated 12.10.2017 through the appellants for clearance of goods imported by them from overseas suppliers M/s. Hongkong My Call Technology Co. Ltd. under MAWB No. 78427064446 dated 8.10.2017 valuing at USD 4337.04 (FOB). The said BOE during first check was reassessed by loading 100% value for each item declared by the importer. DRI accordingly put the consignment covered under the said Bill of Entry on hold on 12.10.2017. The goods were later examined by the officers of DRI under the examination report of the even date. Based upon the further investigation, search and the statements recorded during investigation and from the documents recovered, the Department alleged that importer (M/.s Guru Kripa) by making incorrect declaration of the quantity, non declaration of some of the items and value of imported goods in the Bill of Entry No. 3590163 dated 12.10.2017 have contravened the provisions of section 46 of Customs Act, 1962 read with Rule 11 of Foreign Trade (Regulation), Rules, 1993 have rendered the goods covered under the impugned Bill of Entry liable for confiscation. The importer was also alleged to have suppressed information from the Customs authorities with the intent to evade applicable Customs duty by filing incorrect quantity, description and value of goods in BOE No. 3590163 dated 12.10.2017 and thus have rendered themselves liable for penal action.
Based upon these observations vide the Show Cause Notice No. 03/2018-19 dated 24.4.2018 that the differential duty on determined assessable value was demanded from the importer along with interest and the proportionate penalty. The penalty u/s 112 and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 was proposed to be imposed upon the appellants, the Customs Broker of the importer, alleging valuation of Regulation 11A and 11N of Customs Broker Licence Regulation, 2013. This proposal was confirmed vide Order-in-Original No. 10/2019-20 dated 23.04.2019. This order was communicated to Commissioner of Customs (Airport & General), NCH, New Delhi. Based upon the said information that Show Cause Notice No. 18/MK/2019 dated 14.08.2019 was served upon the appellants proposing the revocation of his Customs Broker Licence for forfeiture of part or whole of the security deposit as was submitted at the time of issuance of said licence in terms of Regulation 14 read with Regulation 17 of CBLR, 2018, for failure to comply with the provisions of Regulation 10 and Regulation 11 of CBLR, 2013. Penalty was also proposed to be imposed. The said proposal was confirmed vide Order-in-Original No. 13/2020 dated 30.1.2020. Being aggrieved of the revocation of the license that the present appeal has been filed.
Conclusion- The appellant no doubt has filed Bill of Entry in the present case. But the same has been filed on the basis of material given to him by his client. He has expressed his bonafide and denied in-correctness of those documents. Merely because there is evidence on record to falsify the said statement, Customs Broker cannot be held liable for the penal action. Otherwise also, he is held not responsible for verifying the contents of his clients. I draw may support from the decision of Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Baraskar Brothers vs Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai reported as [2013 (294) ELT 415 (Tri-Mumbai)]. The appellant has acted on the instruction of importer. The said fact has not been disowned by the importer himself. Hence Mistake cannot be fastened upon the CHA. I draw my support from the decision of Transocean Discoverer 534 LLC vs. Commr. of Cus., Visakhapatnam-II reported as [2009 (236) E.L.T. 56 (Tri. – Bang.)] and the decision of Tribunal Mumbai in the case of P.D. Manjrekar vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai reported as [2007 (213) E.L.T. 405 (Tri. – Mumbai)] wherein it was held that once the Bill of Entry filed were given to CHA by their clients and the importer owns up to their mistake, they have also discharged the duty liability with interest. CHA cannot be considered instrumental in any mis-declaration.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT DELHI ORDER
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
