2015 (3) TMI 68 - AT - Customs

Confiscation of goods u/s 111(d) - importer did not have the IEC code - Penalty u/s 112 - Held that - The reasoning given and the conclusion drawn by the lower appellate authority is beyond any challenge. If the respondent CHA had committed any contravention of CHALR, remedies lies in taking action under CHALR and not under the Customs Act. Therefore, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Penalty imposed on the importer for importing goods without an IEC Code.
2. Penalty imposed on the Customs House Agent (CHA) for filing the bill of entry without the IEC Code.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs, challenging the setting aside of penalties imposed on the importer, M/s. Tekla India, for importing goods without an IEC Code. The Revenue argued that the goods were liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) due to the absence of the IEC code. The lower appellate authority set aside the penalties, prompting the Revenue to appeal. The Additional Commissioner representing the Revenue contended that the penalties were justified as the importer did not possess the required IEC code. The penalties imposed on the importer and the CHA were based on the violation of regulations, and the CHA was accused of colluding with the importer in the illegal importation of goods.

2. The lower appellate authority's findings stated that the penalties imposed on the appellants for violating Courier Regulation 13 and CHA Regulation 13 could not be sustained under Section 112(a) as it depended on the goods being liable for confiscation under Section 111. The possibility of imposing penalties under Section 117 was not discussed as the appellants were not notified for proposing penalties under that section. The authority emphasized that if the CHA contravened the CHALR, action should be taken under CHALR, not the Customs Act. The judgment concluded that the lower appellate authority's reasoning was sound, and there was no basis to interfere with the impugned order. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.

This comprehensive analysis of the legal judgment highlights the issues of penalties imposed on the importer and the CHA for importing goods without an IEC Code, the arguments presented by the Revenue, and the conclusions reached by the appellate authority, providing a detailed understanding of the case.