2006 (8) TMI 487 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty on CHA for assisting in mis-declaration and fraudulent availment of duty concession.
2. Application of Tribunal ruling on identical facts from a previous case.
3. Allegations of aiding and abetting in mis-declaration by the CHA.
4. Consideration of involvement of CHA in aiding and abetting the importers.

Analysis:
1. The judgment deals with the imposition of a penalty on the CHA for allegedly assisting in mis-declaration and fraudulent availment of duty concession by the main importer. The Show Cause Notice alleged that the importer mis-declared goods as parts to benefit from a concessional duty rate. The Tribunal in a previous case involving the same importer had set aside the penalty on the CHA, leading to the present appeal against the penalty imposition.

2. The learned Senior Counsel argued that since the Mumbai Bench had ruled that there was no violation of Customs Act and the CHA had no role in duty evasion, the same principle should apply in the present case. The Tribunal had previously set aside penalties in a similar case, indicating a precedent for the current situation.

3. The allegations of aiding and abetting in mis-declaration by the CHA were examined. The investigation officer in both cases was the same, and the allegations against the CHA were common. The Tribunal had previously found that the importer could not be charged with mis-declaration, leading to the conclusion that the CHA could not be penalized for aiding and abetting the importer.

4. The judgment considered the involvement of the CHA in aiding and abetting the importers in mis-declaration. The Tribunal noted that the goods imported were similar to those in the previous case where the penalty on the CHA was set aside. It was established that the CHA did not play a role in the mis-declaration, and therefore, the penalty on the CHA was set aside based on the Tribunal's previous ruling.

In conclusion, the Tribunal followed the precedent set in a previous case and set aside the penalties imposed on the CHA for assisting in mis-declaration and fraudulent availment of duty concession. The judgment emphasized that the CHA did not aid or abet the importer in mis-declaration, leading to the decision to allow the appeal and provide consequential relief.