9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (6) TMI 807 - AT - CustomsPenalty on CHA and his employee - mis-declaration of the quantity, quality and value of sub-standard goods - Held that - penalties were imposed under Section 114 of the Customs Act which provides that any person who, in relation to any goods, does or omits to do any act which act or omission would render such goods liable to confiscation under Section 113, or abets the doing or omission of such an act, shall be liable for penalty. In the present case, there is no material available on record that the appellants did anything or committed anything in connivance or with the knowledge of the exporter. So, in the facts and circumstances of the case, in our view, the imposition of penalties under Section 114 of the Act are not warranted - there is no material available that the CHA and his employee had any knowledge on the quality, quantity and value of the export goods - penalty set aside.
Issues involved:
1. Imposition of penalties on Customs House Agent (CHA) and 'G' Card holder for mis-declaration of export goods. 2. Application of Section 114 of the Customs Act in relation to the penalties imposed. 3. Consideration of knowledge and involvement of the CHA and 'G' Card holder in the mis-declaration of export goods. Detailed Analysis: 1. The appeals before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi arose from a common order imposing penalties on M/s. D.S. Cargo Service, a Customs House Agent, and Shri Jay Prakash, an employee and 'G' Card holder, in relation to mis-declaration of export goods. The penalties were Rs. 1 lakh and Rs. 5,000 respectively. The Commissioner also confiscated the seized goods and imposed a redemption fine. The appellants contended that they had no knowledge of any improper export of goods and relied on previous Tribunal decisions to support their case. 2. The Revenue, represented by the Learned DR, supported the Commissioner's findings, emphasizing that the export declaration should be signed by the exporters themselves. It was argued that the CHA's employee signed the shipping bills without verifying the goods, based on instructions from the CHA. The Revenue highlighted the CHA's failure to take proper steps regarding the genuineness of the exporter. The penalties were imposed under Section 114 of the Customs Act, which pertains to acts or omissions rendering goods liable to confiscation. 3. Upon hearing both sides and examining the records, the Tribunal found that the CHA's employee signed the export shipping bills based on the exporter's authorization. The Tribunal noted the presence of the exporter's representative during the investigation and adjudication proceedings. It was observed that the CHA did not exercise due diligence regarding the export goods' value, quantity, and quality at the time of filing shipping bills. However, the Tribunal concluded that there was no evidence to suggest the appellants acted in connivance with the exporter or had knowledge of the mis-declaration. 4. Ultimately, the Tribunal held that the penalties imposed under Section 114 of the Customs Act were not warranted in the absence of any material indicating the appellants' involvement or knowledge of the mis-declaration. The penalties on the CHA and 'G' Card holder were set aside, and the impugned order was modified accordingly. The appeals were allowed in favor of the appellants, emphasizing the lack of evidence linking them to the mis-declaration of export goods.
|
