Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.15 seconds)
Multi Wings Clearing &Amp; Forwarding ... vs New Delhi on 18 April, 2019 cites

M/S Zen Cargo Movers Pvt. Ltd vs Cc, New Delhi on 23 December, 2015

8700104 and 8707042 and that the Customs Duty assessed is on the basis of numbers and not weight. Further refuting the charge of violation of Regulation 11(n) that the Appellant failed to present KYC documents to the investigating agency; and that the Appellant has not verified that antecedents, correctness of IEC Number, identity of his client and functioning' of his client at the declared address by using reliable, independent, authentic documents, data or information he argued that the findings are against facts as before filing respective bill of entry, the Appellant verified the documents supplied by the importers such as IEC, Pan Card, Voter Card, Vat Registration and obtained the authority letter from importers and being completely satisfied with the documents filed the bills of entry in question, that the Appellant verified the documents from the website of DGFT and other Departments 10 CUS/50906 of 2018 and then only filed the concerned bills of entry and that it is also wrong to say that the companies were existing on paper only because Officers of DRI had investigated the office premises of the importers for whom the Appellant filed the Bills of Entry and no such companies were found existing on the given address, contrary to such claim, the fact is that all the three importers presented themselves before DRI as and when called upon to do so and have tendered their statements under section 108 of the Customs Act. They have also deposited certain amounts as desired by DRI. He relied upon the case law in G.N.D. Cargo Movers vs. CC (General), New Delhi [2017 (357) E.L.T. 1184 (Tri-Del)] wherein it has been held that charge of violation of Regulation 11(n) regarding failure to verify the antecedents, correctness of the IEC number, and identity of the client does not sustain when IEC number is found to be correct as also the address of the importer. Further all the importers have joined the investigations He further argued that there is no allegation of any pecuniary benefit to the Appellant nor there is any evidence that the Appellant had wrongly advised the importers. He cited certain case laws which suggested that the CHA cannot be penalized for the wrong declarations made by the importers. He lastly argued that the revocation of Licence is likely to affect the livelihood of many persons and hence the impugned order should not be allowed to sustain. On the other hand the Learned DR has reiterated the 11 CUS/50906 of 2018 findings in the impugned order and has argued that the revocation and forfeiture of security deposit be sustained.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 2 - Cited by 27 - Full Document
1