2014 (9) TMI 62 - AT - Customs

Imposition of penalty - DEPB claim - fault of CHA and G card holder - Penalty on exporter - Held that - Record reveals that there was deliberate mis-declaration by the exporter in respect of value and quantity of the goods attempted to be exported. But ettempt to export such mis-declared goods failed. Therefore, the inference that may be drawn is that the exporter appellant apprehending that the goods may be confiscated, choose to avail the option of redemption fine and took back the goods. In such circumstance, imposition of penalty of ₹ 3,00,000/- does not appear to be unreasonable. Therefore, the appeal of the exporter is dismissed. - Decided against the assessee. So far as the CHA is concerned, he does not appear to be innocent. He acted on his own volition for the gain of each other i.e. exporter and himself. Therefore, relieving CHA from penalty shall be improper. Accordingly, penalty of ₹ 50,000/- imposed on CHA is confirmed and his appeal is dismissed - Decided partly in favour of CHA.

Summary

Issues:
1. Mis-declaration of goods for export
2. Imposition of penalties on exporter, CHA, and 'G' card holder

Analysis:
1. The judgment addresses the issue of mis-declaration of goods for export. The Revenue alleged that two sets of shipping bills were filed for the same consignment, one without the DEPB claim and the other to make a draw-back claim. The exporter attributed this to the actions of the CHA and 'G' card holder, claiming they acted under the exporter's instructions. However, it was found that there was deliberate mis-declaration by the exporter regarding the value and quantity of the goods intended for export. Despite the failed attempt to export the mis-declared goods, the exporter opted for redemption fine and withdrew the goods. Consequently, a penalty of Rs. 3,00,000 was imposed on the exporter, which was deemed reasonable, leading to the dismissal of the exporter's appeal.

2. Regarding the penalties imposed on the CHA and 'G' card holder, different considerations were applied. The CHA was found not to be innocent, acting for mutual gain with the exporter. As a result, the penalty of Rs. 50,000 imposed on the CHA was upheld, and his appeal was dismissed. In contrast, the 'G' card holder's role was not conclusively proven to be the mastermind behind the attempted export. While his knowledge of mis-declaration was acknowledged, his subordinate position to the CHA led to a reduction in his penalty to Rs. 25,000. Consequently, the appeal of the 'G' card holder was partly allowed, while the appeals of Fast Movers Shipping Agency and Ador Impex were dismissed.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues of mis-declaration of goods for export and the imposition of penalties on the exporter, CHA, and 'G' card holder, providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal reasoning and outcomes of the case.