2006 (2) TMI 489 - AT - Customs

Confiscation of the goods - Improperly exported - Penalty u/s 114 - Mis-declaration of value and description of the goods - Custom House Agent required to make any declaration of the value? - HELD THAT - From the plain reading of section 113 it would be clear that the penalty can be imposed only if there is mis-declaration of value and description of the goods that are sought to be exported. In this case the appellant is only a CHA and he is not required to make any declaration of the value nor is he required under the law to file description of goods. His role is limited to facilitate the proper filing of the documents as received from the exporter. He is not required to go in to the authenticity of the value of the goods etc. His job is confined to the submissions of the papers as given by the exporter and to identify the exporter to the authorities which he did so when the goods were examined by the authorities. The Exporter was physically present when the authorities examined the goods. To my mind in this case the CHA has acted in a responsible way by producing the exporter who had filed the documents for export of goods. No motive could be attributed to the appellants in this for imposition of penalty u/s 114 of the Customs Act 1962 as there are no specific allegations as to the commission and omissions of the appellant with knowledge. The issue in this case is squarely covered by the decision of the Division Bench s order in the case of Vetri Impex v. CC Tuticorin 2004 (5) TMI 170 - CESTAT CHENNAI . Thus the impugned order is liable to be set aside. I do so and allow the appeal.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against imposition of penalty on a Customs House Agent (CHA) under Sections 113 and 114 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
The appeal challenged the penalty imposed on the CHA for his involvement in a consignment found to be overvalued during export. The CHA was issued a show cause notice under Sections 113(h)(i)(ii) and 114 of the Customs Act, 1962. The adjudicating authority penalized the CHA with Rs. 50,000, which was upheld by the appellate authority, leading to this appeal.

Upon reviewing the submissions and records, it was noted that the penalty was imposed under Section 114 for confiscation of goods under Section 113 of the Customs Act, 1962. Section 113 lists various scenarios where export goods are liable to confiscation, primarily focusing on misdeclaration of goods during export. The CHA's role is limited to facilitating document filing and identifying the exporter, not verifying the value or description of goods. In this case, the CHA acted responsibly by producing the exporter during goods examination, and no specific allegations of wrongdoing were made against the CHA.

The Tribunal referred to a similar case where it was held that a penalty on a CHA is not imposable under Section 114 if there is no evidence of connivance or knowledge of the exporter's illegal acts. As the issue in this case aligned with the previous decision, the impugned order imposing the penalty on the CHA was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

In conclusion, the judgment set aside the penalty imposed on the CHA, emphasizing the limited role of a CHA in export processes and the lack of evidence implicating the CHA in any illegal activities related to the overvalued consignment.