9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (12) TMI 581 - AT - CustomsImposition of penalty - Misdeclaration of goods - whether CHA has knowingly participating in the misdeclaration and was involved helping exporter for exporting non basmati rice in the guise of basmati rice - Held that - From the facts it clearly comes out that container was stuffed in the factory of exporter and CHA was not present there. Neither circumstantial evidence which could show that CHA contributed to the misdeclaration nor any mens rea has been imputed to him. Even on examination of containers, the sample was drawn and sent to the laboratory and laboratory has rightly pointed out that rice contained in the container were non basmati rice and not basmati rice. I do not find any support or instance which could lead to CHA being made liable for imposition of penalty although I am aware that CHA has great responsibility in following export and import procedure requirement. Considering totality of facts and circumstances, I am not able to find active participation of CHA in misdeclaration. - penalty imposed on CHA is not justified and the same is set aside - Decided in favour of appellant.
Issues:
Imposition of penalty on Customs House Agent (CHA) for violation of regulations and involvement in misdeclaration of cargo. Analysis: The judgment revolves around the imposition of a penalty on a Customs House Agent (CHA) for his alleged involvement in the misdeclaration of cargo. The Commissioner of Customs had imposed a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh on the CHA for contraventions related to the Customs House Agent Licensing Regulation, 2004, and the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992. The CHA was accused of failing to verify the authenticity of the cargo, which led to misdeclaration. However, the CHA's counsel argued that the misdeclaration was done by the exporter, and the CHA was not involved in loading the containers. The containers were examined by the Customs, and it was found that non-basmati rice was exported instead of basmati rice. The CHA's lack of involvement in the loading process and the absence of evidence proving his connivance in misdeclaration were highlighted. The judgment considered whether the CHA knowingly participated in the misdeclaration and assisted the exporter in exporting non-basmati rice as basmati rice. It was noted that the container was stuffed at the exporter's factory where the CHA was not present. The absence of circumstantial evidence implicating the CHA in the misdeclaration, as well as the laboratory report confirming the misdeclaration, played a crucial role. Despite recognizing the CHA's significant responsibility in adhering to export and import procedures, the judgment concluded that there was no active participation of the CHA in the misdeclaration. The Tribunal found no grounds to hold the CHA liable for the penalty, ultimately setting aside the penalty imposed on the CHA and allowing the appeal. In conclusion, the judgment carefully analyzed the circumstances surrounding the alleged misdeclaration of cargo and the CHA's role in the process. By considering the lack of evidence implicating the CHA in the misdeclaration and the absence of active participation on his part, the Tribunal decided to set aside the penalty imposed on the CHA. The decision underscored the importance of evidence and active involvement in determining liability in cases of cargo misdeclaration, ultimately ruling in favor of the CHA based on the totality of facts and circumstances presented in the case.
|
