2015 (5) TMI 160 - AT - Customs

Penalty u/s 112(a) - Detention of goods - Imposition of redemption fine and penalty - Held that - The appellant being a console agent, filed transshipment bill of entry of transfer of goods to FTWZ on 16.04.2012 before amendment of the bill of entry in the name of the consignee importer. They have voluntarily disclosed. A show cause notice was issued to the importer and the appellant for imposition of penalty under Section 114AA for confiscation and penalty under 112 (a) of the Customs Act. On perusal of the findings of the order at para 61 & 62, I find that the adjudicating authority has held that there is no allegation in the notice that the console agent has made any false declaration, statement or document, merely filing bill of entry before SEZ with revised documents furnished by the supplier is not sufficient enough to impose penalty on them under Section 114AA of the Act. The adjudicating authority has dropped the penalty under Section 114AA of the Act, but imposed penalty under Section 112 (a) of the Act. Considering the findings of the adjudicating authority that there is no false declaration by the console agent and they have only filed the bill of entry and dropped the penalty under Section 114 AA of the Act, there is no justification for imposition of penalty under Section 112. The impugned order imposing penalty on the appellant under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act is not sustainable and set aside to that extent - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues: Imposition of penalty under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the console agent acting for cargo with pharmaceutical products.

Analysis:
The appellant appealed against the penalty imposed under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962, concerning two consignments of pharmaceutical products. The goods were detained due to the absence of a NOC from the Drug Controller's Office. The adjudicating authority confiscated the goods and allowed re-export with fines and penalties. The appellant, acting as a console agent, contended that they followed customs procedures, had no collusion with the importer or shipper, and were unaware of any pending investigation against the importer. The appellant argued that they should not be held liable for the penalty. The Commissioner had already dropped proceedings for another penalty under Section 114 AA of the Customs Act.

Upon hearing both sides, the Tribunal considered the submissions and records. It was noted that the console agent had filed a transshipment bill of entry before the amendment in the consignee importer's name, voluntarily disclosing information. The adjudicating authority found no false declarations by the console agent and dropped the penalty under Section 114AA. However, a penalty was imposed under Section 112 (a) of the Act. The Tribunal observed that since there was no false declaration by the console agent and the penalty under Section 114 AA was dropped, there was no justification for imposing a penalty under Section 112. Consequently, the impugned order imposing the penalty under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act was deemed unsustainable and set aside, allowing the appeal by the appellant.