2015 (8) TMI 141 - AT - Customs

Imposition of penalty on CHA - Import of prohibited goods - Held that - When there is no evidence to establish that the appellant had prior knowledge of the goods imported and also when there is no evidence to establish any wrongful intent on the part of the appellant then there is no reason to impose penalty. After finding that the appellant has become unknowingly party to fraudulent import, the imposition of penalty is unjustified. - Impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of appellant.

Summary

Issues involved:
Imposition of penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the appellant for involvement in clearing prohibited goods.

Analysis:
The case involved the imposition of a penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the appellant, who was a Customs House Agent (CHA), for their alleged involvement in clearing prohibited goods imported by another party. The impugned consignment, declared as 'Rubber Washers & Rubber Gaskets,' was found to contain prohibited items like sex toys upon examination. It was revealed that the actual importer was someone other than the declared entity, and the primary adjudicating authority imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,00,000 on the appellant for their role in the clearance process. However, on appeal, the penalty was reduced to Rs. 10,000 by the Commissioner (Appeals).

The appellant challenged the penalty, arguing that they had no prior knowledge of the nature of the goods being imported and that they were not aware of the fraudulent nature of the consignment. The Commissioner (Appeals) acknowledged this in their order, noting that the CHA's role was limited to processing import documents and that there was no evidence of the appellant's complicity or wrongful intent in the fraudulent import. The Commissioner (Appeals) highlighted that the appellant's failure to cross-check the importer's existence did not amount to intentional wrongdoing or collaboration in the fraudulent scheme.

The Tribunal, after considering the lack of evidence establishing the appellant's prior knowledge or wrongful intent, concluded that the imposition of the penalty was unjustified. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, providing consequential relief if necessary. The judgment emphasized that the appellant had unknowingly become involved in a fraudulent import scheme and that there was no basis for penalizing them in the absence of evidence indicating intentional wrongdoing or collaboration.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision focused on the lack of evidence implicating the appellant in any intentional or wrongful conduct related to the fraudulent import, leading to the setting aside of the penalty imposed under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.