Page 149 - ELT_3rd_1st May 2020_Vol 372_Part

2020 ] WCI SHIPPING PVT. LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI 371

importer they cannot be found fault with any of the violations as alleged in the
SCN. Ld. Counsel also relied upon following case laws :
(i) Thawerdas Wadhoomal v. CC (General) Mumbai - 2008 (221) E.L.T. 252
(Tri. - Mumbai) which is affirmed by Hon’ble Bombay High Court
reported in 2009 (240) E.L.T. A143 (Bom.)
(ii) APS Freight & Travels Pvt. Ltd. v. CC (General) New Delhi - 2016 (344)
ELT 602 (Tri. - Del.)
(iii) Parvath Shipping Agency v. CC (Gen.) Mumbai - 2017 (357) E.L.T. 296
(Tri. - Mumbai)
(iv) G.N.D. Cargo Movers v. CC (General) New Delhi - 2017 (357) E.L.T.
1184 (Tri. - Del.)
3. Ld. A.R. Ms. K. Komathi appeared and argued on behalf of the de-
partment. She explained the facts of the case and submitted that appellant has
not verified antecedents or the whereabouts of the importer viz., M/s. Greenway
Communication. Dealings were done by Mr. Santosh and Mr. Janaki Raman with
one Mr. Santhakumar who represented himself to be the person associated with
the importer. In fact, there is no such importer as M/s. Greenway Communica-
tion and the said fact would have come to light if the appellant had done proper
verification of the antecedents of the importer. In fact, Mr. Santosh had categori-
cally stated that in a previous consignment the same importer (Santhakumar)
had committed misdeclaration. Even though this fact came to the knowledge of
Santosh he did not convey the same to the customs authorities. When Mr. San-
tosh had knowledge that Santhakumar had misdeclared the goods in the previ-
ous consignment, Santhosh ought not to have accepted the transaction of the ap-
pellant herein without verifying the antecedents. Mr. Santosh then ought to have
insisted on meeting the importer directly. Even after having knowledge that
there is misdeclaration in the previous consignment, the filing of Bill of Entry by
Santosh for the very same importer is violation of provisions of the Customs Act.
Thus there is omission on the part of the appellant to take due diligence and
check antecedents of the importer for reason of which misdeclaration has oc-
curred. She therefore argued that penalties imposed are legal and proper.
4. Heard both sides.
5. From the facts narrated as above, it is seen that Mr. Santosh and Mr.
Janaki Raman are employees of the appellant who is a Customs Broker. The case
of the department is that “H” and “G” card was given by the appellant to these
employees and that they misused the same for facilitating the import of unde-
clared goods. The main allegation which emanates from the facts of the case as
well as the SCN is that Mr. Santosh and Mr. Janaki Raman filed Bill of Entry
without verifying KYC/antecedents of the importer and thus abetted in the im-
port of undeclared goods. In para-3 of the OIO itself, it is noted that as per DGFT
website, M/s. Greenway Communication is a proprietorship concern of which
Mohamed Hanifa is the proprietor. The address of the registered premises is also
exhibited in the website. The appellants have argued that KYC norms/IEC de-
tails were verified from the DGFT website. When the Ministry of Commerce who
has granted IE licence has exhibited the details of IEC holders in their website
which can be verified, the appellant cannot be found fault when the same has
been accepted to be true and correct. The other ground is that Mr. Santosh and
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st May 2020  149