the department unless an independent enquiry by department would have revealed that these documents as fake or submission made therein were incorrect. There is nothing on record to that effect. On the contrary, the department has in fact, accepted that no payment has been made in respect of the goods imported under Bill of Entry No.5008577 dt.11.03.2023. Therefore, the charges leveled against the appellant under Regulation 10(d) are not tenable, in the facts of the case. Moreover, exactly what provisions of the Act or other allied Acts or Rules were not advised by the appellant to his client is also not forthcoming in the charges leveled against the appellant in the SCN. Therefore, unless there is a very clear ground about the charges leveled, the appellant would not get an opportunity to defend his case. For example, if it was regarding wrong classification or wrong valuation, there is nothing on record that he has advised anything to the contrary. The documents where mismatches have been noticed are in relation to the invoice dates, purchase order and phytosanitary certificate, etc., and such inconsistencies, even though explained later by the supplier, would not have been a cause for treating wrong advice to the client in relation to any of the provisions of the Act. We also observe that there is no allegation that the customs broker had submitted false or forged documents for clearance of the goods imported under Bill of Entry and that documents submitted by him were tampered with or suppressed by the customs broker before presentation to the customs authorities and there is nothing on record to show that the appellant, in their capacity as customs broker, were privy to the activity of alleged mis-declaration by the appellant, in the capacity of importer, except for a statement dt.17.08.2023 of Shri K.V. Sampath Kumar, Managing Director of appellant company, wherein, he has, inter alia, accepted his failure to comply with the provisions of Regulations 10(d) & 10(e). We find that while there are some questions addressed to Shri K.V. Sampath Kumar, Managing Director, relating to compliance with regulations of CBLR, he has given statement that he has failed to comply with the same but the said statement, to the extent it is applicable to the appellant, needs to be corroborated with other evidence, which is not forthcoming. We find that the entire SCN No.19/2023-24 dt.06.03.2024 along with RUDs has been relied upon in the SCN dt.13.03.2024. It is to be noted that the SCN dt.06.03.2024 is the detailed SCN to the appellant in relation to import of mis-declared areca nut, which is the subject matter of different proceeding
