2015 (2) TMI 336 - AT - Customs

Levy of Penalty u/s 112 on CHA - Forfeiture of security deposit - Held that - Adjudicating authority held that the CHA had not advised the importer properly. We find that in the present case, the appellant filed Bill of Entry on the basis of document supplied by the importer. The assessable value of the imported goods has been loaded on account of adding the air freight. The freight charges were paid by the foreign supplier. The appellant along with Bill of Entry filed the airway bill also. As appellant by CHA filed all the documents supplied by the importer, in these circumstances and in view of order passed by Tribunal setting aside the forfeiture of security amount, we find that imposition of penalty on the present appellant is not sustainable. Therefore, the penalty imposed on the present appellant is set aside. - Decided in favour of appellant.

Issues:
1. Application for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty under Sec. 112 of the Customs Act.
2. Imposition of penalty on a Customs House Agent (CHA) for loading value on imported goods.
3. Contention regarding lack of evidence for penalty liability.
4. Comparison with Commissioner of Customs' order on forfeiture of security deposit.
5. Proper advising of importer by the CHA.

Analysis:
1. The judgment pertains to an application for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty of &8377; 25,000/- imposed under Sec. 112 of the Customs Act. The applicant, a CHA, filed a Bill of Entry where the adjudicating authority loaded the value by 20%, leading to the imposition of penalty on the importer and the applicant. The Tribunal reviewed the case to determine the validity of the penalty.

2. The main contention raised by the applicant was the lack of evidence to establish any wrongdoing under the Customs Act that would warrant the penalty. The applicant argued that the Commissioner of Customs had previously ordered the forfeiture of a security deposit, which was later set aside by the Tribunal in a separate appeal. The Tribunal considered these points in conjunction with the actions of the CHA in filing the Bill of Entry based on documents provided by the importer.

3. The Revenue, representing the respondent, reiterated the lower authorities' findings, emphasizing that the CHA had failed to properly advise the importer on declaring the value of the imported goods. However, the Tribunal examined the adjudication order and the Order-in-Appeal to assess the situation thoroughly.

4. Upon reviewing the documents and circumstances, the Tribunal found that the CHA had acted in good faith by filing the Bill of Entry based on information supplied by the importer, including the airway bill showing that the freight charges were paid by the foreign supplier. Given these facts and the Tribunal's previous decision on the forfeiture of the security amount, the imposition of penalty on the CHA was deemed unsustainable, leading to the setting aside of the penalty.

5. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and the stay application, indicating that the penalty imposed on the CHA was not justified based on the evidence and circumstances presented during the proceedings. The judgment highlights the importance of proper documentation and adherence to legal procedures in customs-related matters to avoid unwarranted penalties.

← Previous Next →