2011 (8) TMI 237 - AT - Customs

CHA services - CHA also submitted that he is holder of licence form 1991 onwards and no allegation of misconduct stands attributed to him or any proceedings stands initiated against him - He is still continuing the business of CHA and no contraventions have been found against him - As regard penalty imposed upon him under the Customs Act, during the earlier proceeding, which stands accepted by him. Learned Advocate clarified that the penalty was not under section 112 of the Customs Act but was under Section 117 of the said Act - Inasmuch as a small amount of penalty was involved, he did not contest the penalty and the same was paid.

Summary

Issues:
1. Mis-declaration of imported goods in bill of entry.
2. Valuation of imported goods for assessment.
3. Revocation of CHA license and penalty imposition.
4. Contention regarding examination of goods and certification.

Issue 1: Mis-declaration of imported goods in bill of entry
The case involved the mis-declaration of imported goods in the bill of entry filed by the importer. The imported consignment was declared as "used cylinder blocks" but was found to be old and used diesel engines of Japan origin upon examination by customs officers. This mis-declaration led to market enquiries and a reassessment of the goods' value for duty calculation.

Issue 2: Valuation of imported goods for assessment
Based on the physical examination report and market enquiries, the value declared by the importer was rejected, and a fresh value was determined for the assessment of the imported goods. The Joint Commissioner confirmed the demand for differential duty based on the reassessment and imposed penalties on the importer, chartered engineer, and Customs House Agent (CHA).

Issue 3: Revocation of CHA license and penalty imposition
The proceedings included a show cause notice proposing the revocation of the CHA license under Regulation 22 of the CHALR 2004 and the imposition of penalties under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner adjudicated the show cause notice, vacating it and dropping the proceedings against the CHA, leading the Revenue to file the present appeal.

Issue 4: Contention regarding examination of goods and certification
The adjudicating authority observed that the CHA had requested the first check or examination of goods before assessment, indicating their diligence in fulfilling obligations. The Revenue contended that the examination by the chartered engineer was not authorized by the customs department and was done to mislead, leading to a prayer for setting aside the order.

In the final judgment, the Tribunal considered the submissions of both sides. It noted that the CHA had requested the department to conduct the first check, indicating no malafide intention to misdeclare goods. The Tribunal found no independent evidence of wrongdoing by the CHA and rejected the appeal, agreeing with the CHA's advocate that no evidence supported the revocation of the CHA's license.