2015 (11) TMI 1502 - AT - Customs

Penalty u/s 114(i) on CHA for abetting the export of the prohibited goods - confiscation under Section 113 - Whether or not the respondents had knowingly attempted to export prohibited goods i.e. rice in the guise of dal Husk are liable for penalty under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962 - Held that - there is no breach of obligations by the respondents Director and employee of CHA. It is not the case that CHA had got the goods loaded in the container. Further, on noticing the mis-declaration at the time of de-stuffing, the respondents have immediately informed the concerned authority in writing. Further, the respondents have co-operated in investigation against the said kingpins who have attempted export of prohibited goods. Accordingly, I uphold the impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against setting aside penalty under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 imposed on the Director and employee of a CHA firm for aiding and abetting illegal export of non-basmati rice.
2. Allegation of mis-declaration of cargo and involvement of CHA in the illegal export scheme.
3. Analysis of the Commissioner (Appeals) decision and its reliance on previous tribunal rulings.
4. Arguments presented by the Revenue regarding the role of the CHA in the matter.
5. Evaluation of whether the respondents knowingly attempted to export prohibited goods and the applicability of penalty under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged the setting aside of penalties imposed on the Director and employee of a CHA firm under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962. The case involved the illegal export of non-basmati rice, mis-declared as Dal Husk, and the alleged involvement of the respondents in aiding and abetting this scheme.

2. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the CHA firm had promptly informed the authorities upon discovering the mis-declaration of cargo. The respondents cooperated in the investigation against the main perpetrators of the illegal export, distancing themselves from any prior knowledge or involvement in the scheme.

3. The Commissioner (Appeals) decision was based on the lack of evidence showing the respondents' prior knowledge or active participation in the illegal export. The decision also relied on previous tribunal rulings, such as Airtravel Enterprises India Ltd. and Commissioner of Customs (Prev), West Bengal, to support the finding that penalties were not applicable in the absence of direct involvement or knowledge.

4. The Revenue argued that the manner in which the goods were carted and the actions of the CHA employee indicated their involvement in the illegal export scheme. They contended that the CHA failed to follow proper procedures and verify the antecedents of the exporter, suggesting complicity in the mis-declaration.

5. The evaluation centered on whether the respondents knowingly attempted to export prohibited goods and the applicability of penalty under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962. The respondents' immediate reporting of the mis-declaration and cooperation in the investigation supported the finding that they were not actively engaged in the illegal export scheme.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals), dismissing the Revenue's appeal and affirming that the respondents were not in breach of obligations. The case highlighted the importance of due diligence and cooperation in customs matters, emphasizing the need for evidence of direct involvement before imposing penalties under the Customs Act.