Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Ecg Easy Connect Logistics Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs Airport & ... on 22 March, 2024
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
NEW DELHI.
PRINCIPAL BENCH,
COURT NO. IV
CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 55524 OF 2023
[Arising out of the Order-in-Original No. 48/ZR/POLICY/2023 dated
18/08/2023 passed by The Commissioner of Customs (Airport & General), New
Customs House, New Delhi.]
M/s ECG Easy Connect Logistics Pvt. Ltd., Appellant
A-12, Ground Floor, Kh. No. 404, A Block,
Road No. 4, Street No. 7, Mahipalpur Extn.,
New Delhi - 110 037.
VERSUS
Commissioner of Customs, Respondent
(Airport & General), New Customs House, Near I.G.I. Airport, New Delhi - 110 037.
APPEARANCE Shri Manish Paliwal, Advocate, Shri Nitin Gupta, Advocate - for the appellant.
Shri Rajesh Singh, Authorized Representative for the Department. CORAM:
HON'BLE DR. MS. RACHNA GUPTA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HON'BLE MS. HEMAMBIKA R. PRIYA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) FINAL ORDER NO. 55447/2024 DATE OF HEARING : 24.11.2023.
DATE OF DECISION : 22.03.2024.
RACHNA GUPTA The present appeal has been filed against the order-in- original No. 48/2023 dated 18.08.2023 vide which the courier registration of appellant has been revoked with the order of
2 CUS/55524 OF 2023 forfeiture of security and imposition of penalty under Regulation 14 of Courier Import Export Regulation (CIER), 2010.
2. The facts culminating into impugned Show Cause Notice (SCN), in brief, are as follows :
The Assistant Commissioner of Customs, ACC (Export), New Delhi vide their letter dated 17.11.2020 (Offence Report) informed the Commissioner of Customs (Airport & General) that a case had been booked at Courier Terminal, New Delhi wherein 174 number of front panels (including display units) of different models of I-phone covered in one of the two HAWBs and 174 number of back panels (including camera etc.) along with mobile chips screens and IMEI strips covered under another HAWB of same master airway bill had been seized by said Commissionerate in Courier Bills of Entry (CBEs). The goods were wrongly classified under CET SH 85340000 which attracts NIL rate of BCD whereas mobiles are classified elsewhere with 18% IGST. The item described in the Bills of Entry was CTH 85340000 which is "printed circuits", however, on physical examination, no printed circuits were found. Hence the classification was not acceptable indicating clear motive of Courier to evade customs duty.
3. Appellant/ authorized courier admitted to have filled CBEs. During further investigation of the said matter, serious involvement of the authorized courier M/s ECG Easy Connect Logistics Pvt. Ltd., the appellant also surfaced. It was found that 3 CUS/55524 OF 2023 the consignments were imported in the name of two different consignees namely M/s Mangalmurti Traders, Nagpur and M/s Kripa Shankar Maurya of Kolkata. However, from the proof of delivery submitted by the courier, it was observed that the consignment was delivered promptly within a day or two to one and the same person namely Suraj, who was based in Delhi. This meant that delivery of different consignments imported in the name of different companies at different locations, were delivered to one person in Delhi. Department formed an opinion that the authorized courier provided the incorrect information to the Customs Department and failed to follow the obligation under Regulation 12 (1) (v) of CIR, 2010, since the goods were found to have been deliberately mis-declared and misclassified and that the courier company only had filed the Courier Bills of entry, department alleged that the courier has connived with the importer to evade the huge amount of customs duty.
4. During investigation it was also observed that IEC of M/s Mangalmurti Traders was wrongly used for the beneficial importer namely Mr. Anoop Kumar. Said Anoop Kumar was found to be a friend of Gulshan, the employee of the courier agent/appellant. The G-card holder of appellant also was found to have knowledge that Proprietor of M/s Kripa Shankar Maurya is the brother of said Anoop. He also acknowledged that appellant courier had imported goods by using the IEC of some other importer. Based on these investigations, show cause notice No. 24/2020-cum-suspension order dated 27.11.2020 was passed by Commissioner of Customs 4 CUS/55524 OF 2023 (Airport & General) proposing/suspending the courier operation of the appellant with respect to courier licence bearing No. 18/2018-19, which was valid upto 04.03.2021 forming an opinion that courier agent/ appellant has contravened Regulation 10 (1)
(i), (iii), (iv), (v), (vii) and (x) of Regulation 12 (1). Enquiry was ordered to be conducted with the opportunity to the appellant to file a reply to the show cause notice along with all the evidences. Assistant Commissioner filed the Enquiry Report No. VIII/20/586 dated 13.01.2021. It was found that the authorized courier has delivered the goods to the designated person under the authorization given by both the importers. It was found that the matter was still under investigation by SIIB, however, by the time of the said enquiry report no evidence of the alleged connivance was found. Hence the appellant was not found guilty vide said inquiry report. Based on the said enquiry report, the order-in-original No. 13/2021 was passed by Commissioner of Customs dated 05.02.2021. The findings of enquiry report exonerating the appellant were accepted holding that Regulation 12 (1) of CIER, 2010 has not been violated by the appellant. The original adjudicating authority accordingly refrained from revoking the appellant's courier registration and from forfeiting the security deposit; even from imposing any penalty on the appellant.
5. Subsequent to the said order, the investigations by SIIB were concluded. Pursuant, another show cause notice No. 16/2021 dated 30.09.2021 was served upon both the importers 5 CUS/55524 OF 2023 M/s Mangalmurti Traders and M/s Kripa Shankar Maurya, the beneficial importer Anoop Kumar Maurya, on Gulshan Kumar Singh and also on the appellant proposing the imposition of penalty under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. The said show cause notice was adjudicated vide order-in-original No. 166/2023 dated 14.07.2023 confirming the proposal against both the importers, the beneficial importer namely Anoop Kumar and the Gulshan Kumar. However, the authority refrained from imposing any penalty on the appellant holding that the appellant has complied with the KYC norms and in respect of delivery of imported goods at Delhi instead of Nagpur and Kolkata, the proof of delivery were duly produced by the appellant having due authorization from the consignees in favour of the recipient.
6. A simultaneous show cause notice No. 32/2021 dated 24.12.2021 was also issued to the appellant with the alleged contravention of provision of CIER 2010 based on the above mentioned facts and circumstances. In addition, based on the physical examination report of the Chartered Engineer with respect to the seized imported goods, the said show cause notice has been adjudicated vide the order-in-original No. 48/2023 dated 18.08.2023. In the said order the appellant is held to have violated Regulation 12 (1) (i), (iii), (iv), (vii) & (x) and accordingly order of revocation of courier registration of the appellant forfeiting the security deposit by him was passed. An order of imposing penalty of Rs. 50,000/- has also been passed.
6 CUS/55524 OF 2023 Being aggrieved of the said order, the appellant is before this Tribunal.
7. We have heard Shri Manish Paliwal, learned counsel for the appellant assisted by Shri Nitin Gupta and Shri Rajesh Singh, learned Departmental Representative (DR) for the Revenue.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant has mentioned that the appellant had never violated any provision of CIER, 2010 nor ever has misled the investigation as has been alleged in the show cause notice dated 30.09.2021 while describing the role of authorized courier. It is impressed upon that appellant has complied with proper due diligence required under the impugned regulations required to know your client (KYC) along with Proof of Delivery (PoDs), the relevant documents of the importers against the imported shipment, were duly provided to the investigation team. The appellant had readily made himself available for getting the statement recorded. Not only himself but he made available the importers including the beneficial importer and all other concerned to be examined by the investigation team and they all offered their statements. The appellant has never involved himself in importation of prohibited items or ever in mis- declaring or mis-classifying import consignments. The appellant had proper authorization letter dated 21.06.2020 for delivery of goods/consignment from M/s Kripa Shankar Maurya and they had delivered the consignment to the nominated person only. Similar authorization letter dated 13.05.2020 was from M/s Mangalmurti 7 CUS/55524 OF 2023 Traders and none of them denied giving the said authorization. It is also impressed upon that the period in question was period of COVID Pandemic, for want of any transportation to the required places (Nagpur/Kolkata), the goods were desired to be delivered in Delhi itself.
9. With respect to filing of courier bills of entry (CBEs) it is mentioned that those were properly filed with proper classification of the goods as per the invoices which were received from the shipper/consignor. The item description therein was specifically as mobile parts (PCB & LCD) under 85340000 and 90138010. The same was mentioned in CBEs without mis- declaring either the quantity, value or the description. Otherwise also, the courier appellant had no motive of any connivance. The evasion of customs duty by the appellant has wrongly been alleged. It is also submitted that there is no possibility of tempering or modifying anything with respect to the particulars of the invoice including date, while filing or uploading on customs ECCs portal, hence, the involvement of the appellant and misconduct alleged by the department has no basis. All the allegations were duly replied with by the appellant vide their reply dated 25.10.2021 to the show cause notice. The adjudicating authority below has failed to consider the documents. It has also failed to consider that the enquiry report and the earlier order-in-original has set aside the allegations against the appellant leveled in the initial show cause notice. With the submissions, the appeal in hand is prayed to be allowed.
8 CUS/55524 OF 2023
10. While rebutting these submissions, learned Departmental Representative submitted that description of the goods declared in the courier bills of entry with respect to both the importers were spare parts PCB LDC whereas on examination various undeclared goods, mobile accessories and spare parts along with iPhone in CKD conditions were found. These goods were properly classifiable under CTH 85171211 which attract customs duty @ 20% BCD, hence, the declaration of goods under CTH 85340000 @ nil BCD was apparently a mis-classification and mis-declaration by the appellant with an intent to evade customs duty. The invoice number and date with respect to the impugned goods were missing, the invoices which were uploaded in the customs portal were found to be different from those which were produced during investigation even w.r.t. past imports. The proof of delivery submitted by the appellant were also found to be forged. The date in the authorization letters is admitted by the importers themselves to have been obtained after investigation. It is also impressed upon that there is no denial to the fact, rather there is corroborative evidence to prove, that the entire import was in the name of two different IEC holders, but was actually made by a third person namely Anoop Kumar Maurya and goods instead of being handed over to the said two importers were handed over to one common person namely Suraj, that too in Delhi instead of the registered address of the respective importers. Said Anoop Kumar Maurya in his statement dated 23.12.2020 has categorically denied working with M/s Mangalmurti Traders, 9 CUS/55524 OF 2023 however, has admitted of IEC using of M/s Mangalmurti Traders, for the said import, the other importer M/s Kripa Shankar Maurya is admitted to be his real brother. Further there is an admission even in the statement of G Card holder of the appellant that Directors of appellant company, themselves, used to describe, declare and classify the goods for filing courier bills of entries (CBEs). The inspection report dated 12.03.2021 from the authorized representative of the right holder of "Apple" namely M/s Anand & Anand is also impressed upon vide which it was reported that 173 pieces of yellow colored stickers having IMEI number are counterfeit and are found to be in violation of the Intellectual Property Rights of the Right Holder and the numbers are likely to be reused for packaging with devices inside to be sold as new. The importer had imported counterfeit Apple products with the malafide intention of selling the same as genuine in the open markets and thereby deceiving the general public at large. The aforesaid modus operandi of the importer is not permissible under the provisions of The Trademarks Act, 1999 and the Customs Act, 1962. However, vide email dated 17.03.2021, M/s Anand and Anand informed that the right holder does not wish to join the proceedings with the back panels, front panels, and other unbranded accessories. Based on this report violation of IPR is alleged. The valuation of these goods was arrived at with the help of Chartered Engineer Report dated 15.07.2021. Thus, there is sufficient evidence on record to prove the connivance of appellant with the importer and beneficial 10 CUS/55524 OF 2023 importer and concealment of correct facts from the customs authority. Hence appellant/authorized courier is rightly held to have contravened the provision of Regulation 12 (1) (i) (iii) (iv)
(vii) and (x) was of CIR, 2010. Impressing upon no infirmity in the order under challenge. Learned departmental representative has prayed for dismissal of appeal.
11. Having heard the rival contentions of the parties perusing the entire record, we observe and hold as follows :-
The Department leveled allegations of mis-declaration of goods by the appellants as courier agents which otherwise were imported by M/s Mangalmurti Traders and M/s Kripa Shankar Maurya and that the appellant has violated Regulation 12 (1) (i)
(iii) (iv) (vii) and (x) and CIER, 2010. It is alleged that appellant/ licensed courier has withheld information relating to assessment and clearance of goods imported. He has failed to exercise due diligence to ascertain correctness and completeness of the information and to submit the same to the proper officer. He also failed to advice the consignor or consignee to comply with the regulations and the related provisions.
12. The facts leading to observe from the record that as many as 19 consignments were imported by M/s Mangalmurti Traders and 10 were imported by M/s Kripa Shankar Maurya. The quantity declared in one of the CBE No. 14791 (HAWB No. 200002003) is 140 whereas 174 back panels of iPhones were found during physical examination. Similarly, the quantity of 11 CUS/55524 OF 2023 goods declared in CBE No. 14793 (HAWB No. 200002004) is 152 whereas 174 number of front panels of iPhones were found. There is no denial to the said noticed mis-declaration. This observation is sufficient for us to hold that quantity of iPhones panels imported was mis-declared. Another fact that stands proved from this observation is that 174 numbers of back panels of iPhones and 174 number of front panels of iPhones were imported for two different traders/consigners through the appellant, as the authorized courier. The Chartered Engineer engaged by the appellant has certified that the panels of both the import consignments can readily be assembled into sets of 174 iPhones (models iPhone 6, 6S, 6+, 7 and 7+). The said Chartered Engineer vide his certificate dated 15.07.2021 in addition to the above confirmation has certified that (i) (ii) (iii) (iv); the inspected units of both the consignments are the sub-assemblies of these iPhones and its parts which are the goods for consumer industry use, as such the goods cannot be constituted as e- waste; (ii) all the items are in new condition; (iii) the items seem to be duplicates/fakes/likes/spurious; (iv) the items are of iPhone various models make a set of each type by combining the top and bottom of the respective models; (v) The assessable value as suggested by CE for both consignments is Rs. 12,98,888.20, whereas the value declared by appellant in impugned CBEs for both these consignments is Rs. 6,49,444.00. This certification falsifies that the imported goods are spare parts PCB LCB clarifying that description declared by appellant is wrong. In 12 CUS/55524 OF 2023 addition, the value declared is certified to be less than the assessable/actual value clarifying that the valuation filed by appellant is also wrong. No evidence is otherwise produced by appellant to show that value declared is the correct value.
13. We further observe that Right holder, Apple Inc. vide their letter dated 12.03.2021 has submitted as follows :-
(i) the stickers bearing the Apple word mark are counterfeit and found to be in violation of IPR.
(ii) the IMEI number on the stickers all refer to older devices rather than new, unused devices. It is likely these stickers would be placed on packaging with devices inside to be sold on as new.
(iii) in the present consignment, the importer has imposed counterfeit Apple products with the malafide intention of selling the same as genuine in the open markets and thereby deceiving the general public at large.
This has been affirmed vide Inspection Report dated 12.03.2021 as has been impressed upon by learned Departmental Representative.
Accordingly, we hold that there is sufficient evidence on record to prove the under valuation as being committed by the appellant with respect to the impugned import consignments.
14. Coming to the allegations of appellant involvement viz-a- viz his connivance with the importers and concealment of 13 CUS/55524 OF 2023 relevant information from department and lack of due diligence on his part, we observe the following fact and evidences on record :-
"3. The appellant has failed to discharge the responsibility casted upon him in terms of courier regulation CIER, 2010.
(i) The courier company has submitted invoices which do not contain any invoice number, the dates mentioned on the invoices admittedly is 17.07.2019. The CBE's are of 21.06.2020 and of the month of September 2020 wherein neither the invoice number nor the date thereof is mentioned
(ii) Consignments destined to Nagpur and Kolkata imported by two different importers have been delivered by appellant in Delhi to same and the same person, namely Shri Suraj in Delhi/NCR.
Both the importers have acknowledged said Suraj to be their authorized representative. This acknowledgement and the subsequent investigation has revealed that both the importer had the common connect and the same was in the knowledge of the employees and the G card holder of the appellant. Not only this, they were also aware of the fact that both these importers are dummy whose IEC is being used by Anoop Maurya, the beneficial importer. He is admitted to the close friend of appellant's employee and real brother of importer M/s Kripa Shankar.
(iii) Though appellant submitted proof of delivery (PoD) documents but after altering the phone number and signatures of said Suraj. Few digits of the phone numbers of Shri Suraj appearing below his signatures in the PoD documents have been altered only to mislead the investigation. This has been accepted in the statements of all three Shri Kripa Shankar, Shri Gulshan the employee of appellant and Shri Anoop that all the signatures are 14 CUS/55524 OF 2023 of Suraj but few digits of his mobile number has been altered deliberately. No rebuttal to this testimony is brought on record by the appellant nor these statements have ever been objected by the appellant.
(iv) Shri Sanjay Dagar, G card holder of the appellant, in his statement dated 13.10.2020 has clearly stated that the two importers are in no way related to each other, whereas the delivery of both the importers have been made to same person Suraj in most of the cases. Same phone number appears on the invoices of both the HAWBs 200002003 and 200002004. The goods have been deliberately mis-declared and mis-classified under CTH 85340000 by the authorized courier so as to attract NIL rate of BCD.
(v) All of the importers in their statements as well as Shri Dagar have stated that the Courier Company, i.e. M/s ECG Easy Connect Logistics Pvt. Ltd., files the CBEs and decides the CTH. This is the basic role of a courier who acts on behalf of customs department to correctly declare the CTH of goods for the correct assessment of duty. In this era of self-declaration, such deliberate act is a serious breach of trust and is of serious concern.
(vi) The courier had been asked to submit invoices in respect of the previous clearances made by the two importers. The invoices submitted by the courier during the investigation were different from those were uploaded on the system clearly indicating that the invoices were spurious and were actually prepared at the end of the courier only.
(vii) The authorizations in respect of two importers submitted by the Courier too appeared to be forged as evident from the statements of Shri Gulshan and Shri Kripa Shankar. The 15 CUS/55524 OF 2023 authorizations were taken from the importers only after the seizure of impugned imported goods was made by SIIB. The authorized courier completely failed to exercise due diligence in ascertaining the veracity of the importers and to convey to the department that the import made by M/s Mangalmurti Traders was actually import by Shri Anoop.
(viii) Also, from both the invoices it is apparent that same mobile number of Shri Gulshan Singh is mentioned thereupon. He is neither connected to M/s Mangalmurti Traders nor to M/s Kripa Shankar Maurya. However, he has acknowledged to receive shipments on behalf of M/s Mangalmurti Traders and M/s Kripa Shankar Maurya and later on produced himself as authorized representative of M/s Mangalmurti Traders". He being the employee of M/s ECG Easy Connect Logistics Pvt. Ltd. is responsible for its act. Thus it stands proved that appellant worked in connivance with the importers as it readily delivered their consignments in Delhi/NCR to the same person and not to the destinations in Nagpur and Kolkata.
(ix) From the above discussion it is clear that had the verification mandated under the subject regulation been done diligently by the appellant, the modus operandi regarding import of un assembled mobile parts through different consignments in the name of different importer but for common non-IEC holder/ beneficial importer that too based on fake invoices, could have been detected before hand.
(x) Thus the roles of the authorized courier in the entire activity appear to be substantial, and against the good faith and obligation reposed by the department".
16 CUS/55524 OF 2023
15. The learned counsel for the appellant though relied upon the decision dated 01.09.2023 in the case of Shyam Singh versus Commissioner, Customs in Customs Appeal No. 50033 of 2023 dated 01.09.2023 where the arrangement of revocation of customs broker license was held dis-proportionate to the act of violating CIER. However, we are of the opinion that the said decision is not applicable to the case in hand.
16. The appellant herein is a courier agency as different from a customs house agent. The procedure in case of goods imported through courier are slightly different than goods imported through normal channels where the importer usually engages a customs broker who files the Bill of Entry as per documents provided by the importer and upon clearance through the customs after payment of duty the importer takes the goods. Whereas the courier manages the entire chain from the overseas consignor to the Indian consignee through the customs.
The Courier company not only processes the clearance of the goods through the customs but actually receives the goods from the overseas exporter, transports them to India, clears them through the customs and further delivers them to the consignee in India at his address. The Regulations regulating this process provide for licensing of couriers who only can handle this work. In such imports, after the goods are brought into the country the courier has to obtain Know Your Customer (KYC) documents from the consignees and their authorization and 17 CUS/55524 OF 2023 thereafter has to file courier bills of entry (CBEs) in respect of each of the consignments. After the goods are assessed by customs, the courier pays the customs duty and clears the goods and takes them to the premises of the importer and delivers them and collects the customs duty which was paid by the courier while clearing the goods.
17. It is established on record that Gulshan the employee of the appellant and the beneficial importer namely Anoop are the close friends and that said Anoop is the real brother of Kripa Shankar Maurya, one of the importer. Suraj, recipient of both the consignments meant of different consignee at distant & distinct locations, is also admitted to be close associate of Gulshan. The G card holder of appellant, Suraj Dagar, has admitted that he knew about the entire arrangement with respect to the impugned consignments. He also acknowledged that the Directors of the appellant's company used to decide the classification as well as valuation of the import consignment. From the entire above discussion, it becomes clear that the appellant has failed to take :
(a) due authorization from each of the consignees as already observed above, the authorization was obtained subsequent to the investigation and there was a change of date in the said authorization letter ;
(b) to advised consignors and consignee to comply with the regulations ;
18 CUS/55524 OF 2023
(c) G card holder of the appellant's employee were well aware of the entire impugned arrangement. The appellant is bound by the act of its agent and was under
obligation to make the consignees aware all the relevant provisions ;
(d) appellant has failed to verify antecedent and correctness of Import Export Code (IEC). There is admission of representatives of the appellant that they were well aware about Mr. Anoop to be the actual importer and that IEC code does not belong to him ;
(e) despite having complete information about spurious/ counterfeit goods to have been imported by way of two different consignments after wrongly declaring the same the fact was not brought to the notice of the proper officer.
18. Also appellant was well aware that master Airway Bill is common for import of same number of consignments (174) being imported by two different importers/at consignees situated at two different and distant locations. Appellant concealed the said vital information.
19. The appellant's main contention is the inquiry report dated 13.01.2021 is in favour of appellant. It has been held that the appellant has abided by all the provisions of the act and CIER Regulations. Alleged violation of Regulation 12 CIER has been ruled out. However the said report and the said order-in-original 19 CUS/55524 OF 2023 has been ignored by the order under challenge. We observe that order dated 05.02.2021 has been discussed in the order under challenge. It has been observed therein that despite an investigation was under process with SIIB and status thereof was demand but was not produced till the time of said inquiry report dated 13.01.2021 and the said order-in-original dated 05.02.2021. The adjudicating authority has also observed that following material evidence was produced subsequently by SIIB.
(i) Inspection report Ref. No. 16561/Customs-27 dated 12.03.2021 was submitted by M/s Anand and Anand, the right holder of the "Apple"/"iPhone, wherein it was informed that 173 pieces of yellow colored stickers having IMEI No. were counterfeit and were found to be in violation of the Intellectual Property Rights of the Right Holder and the numbers were likely to be reused for packaging with devices inside to be sold on as new; that the importer had imported counterfeit Apple products with the malafide intention of selling the same as genuine in the open markets and thereby deceiving the general public at large.
(ii) A letter dated 18.06.2021 was written to Department of Telecommunication, providing the details of 173 IMEI numbers mentioned on the yellow stickers, found during the examination, with a request to provide details thereof so as to ascertain their genuineness. Department of Telecommunication, vide their letter 20 CUS/55524 OF 2023 dated 16.07.2021 confirmed that no IMEI certificate had been generated, as on 06.07.2021, from Indian Counterfeited Device Restriction (ICDR) system for the said IMEIs list.
(iii) Chartered Engineer, Anoop Kumar Sharma, vide Certificate No. CE/DE-AS/0477/2021-22 dated 15.07.2021 confirmed that the mobile parts were new; that they seemed to be Duplicate/Fake/Likes/Spurious; that the parts of iPhone various models make a set of each type by combining the top and Bottom of the, respective models. Assessable values of the said sets of iPhones of various models and mobile accessories/parts were also ascertained.
(iv) Data for previous clearances was sought from the authorized courier. The data suggested that there were as many as 20 consignments which had been imported by M/s Mangalmurti Traders out of which 19 had been cleared from NCT Delhi and as many as 11 consignments have been imported by M/s Kripa Shankar Maurya out of which 10 had been cleared through the same authorized courier, M/s ECG Easy Connect Logistics Pvt. Ltd.
20. Thus moot question of authenticity of authorizations and invoices especially the manipulation of dates was not before the adjudicating authority at the time of order dated 05.02.2021. the order of setting aside alleged violation of CIER by appellant was 21 CUS/55524 OF 2023 thus passed due to lack of evidence at that time. Hence, in the light of subsequent evidence against appellant we find no reason to different from the findings in the impugned order under challenge (order-in-original dated 18.08.2023).
21. All these observations are sufficient for us to hold that the appellant has violated Regulation 12 and the respective sub- regulations of CIER 2010. We affirm the findings arrived at in the order under challenge w.r.t. each sub-clause of Regulation 12 of CIER. Resultantly we uphold the order under challenge. As a consequence thereto the appeal in hand is hereby order to be dismissed.
(Order pronounced in open court on 22/03/2024.) (DR. RACHNA GUPTA) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) (HEMAMBIKA R. PRIYA) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) PK