9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The issue involves whether the appellant, a Custom House Agent (CHA), should be considered as an agent under Section 147 of the Customs Act, 1962. Comprehensive Details: 1. Background and Adjudication Process: The appellant, a CHA, filed a bill of entry on behalf of an importer and the goods were cleared on payment of customs duty. Subsequently, a suspicion of undervaluation arose, leading to a demand notice to the importer for payment of differential duty and penalty. Despite the adjudication and imposition of dues on the importer, recovery efforts were unsuccessful, prompting action against the CHA for recovery u/s 147(3) of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. Appellant's Argument and Legal Precedents: The appellant contended that as a CHA, their duties ceased upon clearing the consignment for the importer. Citing the Tribunal's decision in M/s. Aspinwall & Co. case and the Supreme Court's ruling in Collector of Customs v. Trivandrum Rubber Works Ltd., the appellant argued that they should not be considered an agent u/s 147 of the Customs Act. 3. Revenue's Position and Tribunal's Analysis: The Adjudicating Authority supported by the SDR maintained the liability of the appellant for the dues. However, upon review, the Tribunal found that the revenue had made efforts to recover from the importer, and the appellant's role as a CHA ended upon clearance of goods. Not being implicated in any wrongdoing, the appellant was not liable for the dues as per legal interpretations from previous cases. 4. Tribunal's Decision and Conclusion: After considering submissions and records, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant, as a CHA, was not liable for the differential duty and penalty. Relying on legal precedents, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant. *(Operative portion of this Order was pronounced in open court on conclusion of hearing)*
|
