2016 (1) TMI 587 - AT - Customs

Levy of penalty on CHA for abetment - duty evasion on import of Toyota Altezza car - Held that - In the present case the person in whose name the car was imported was having a labour visa and did not have much balance either to buy a car or to pay the duty thereon. He admitted in his statement that he is an illiterate person without any first hand knowledge of the rules and regulations under the Customs Act. In such circumstances, the responsibility of CHA is much more to be cautious and vigilant. During the investigation it was found that the importer is not a real owner and is merely a carrier. In these circumstances, the CHA appellant has onerous responsibility to discharge which in the present circumstances he has failed to discharge and his culpability in the facts and circumstances cannot be ruled out. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the penalty imposed on the appellant is double the amount of penalty imposed on the main offender, i.e., Shri Shabeer Shareef and the same is illegal as per the law. At the most he is liable for the same penalty as that of the main offender. This argument of the learned Counsel has force and therefore, we reduce the penalty to the extent of ₹ 50,000/- as has been imposed on the main offender. - Decided partly in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No.355/2004 MCH confirming the order-in-original.
- Allegation of involvement in irregular importation of a car under the Transfer of Residence scheme.
- Imposition of penalties on the appellant CHA and the main offender.
- Interpretation of Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 regarding penalties.
- Assessment of the appellant's responsibility and culpability in the importation process.

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged the confirmation of the order-in-original related to the irregular importation of a car under the Transfer of Residence scheme. The appellant, a Customs House Agent (CHA), was involved in the clearance process for the imported car.

2. The appellant argued that the show-cause notice lacked specific allegations against him beyond his role as a CHA. He contended that there was no legal proof establishing his direct involvement or abetment in the alleged illicit importation, questioning the invocation of Section 112 of the Customs Act.

3. The appellant's counsel emphasized the penal nature of Section 112, requiring proof beyond doubt of the person's involvement. He criticized the imposition of penalties based on unsubstantiated statements and assumptions, urging for a higher standard of evidence.

4. The Assistant Commissioner, representing the respondent, supported the Commissioner's findings regarding the penalties imposed on the appellant and the main offender, Shri Shabeer Shareef.

5. The Tribunal considered the circumstances surrounding the importation, noting that the importer lacked the financial capacity and knowledge of customs regulations. The appellant, as a CHA, was expected to exercise caution and vigilance, especially when dealing with such cases.

6. The Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's argument that the penalty imposed on him was double that of the main offender, deeming it excessive. Consequently, the Tribunal reduced the appellant's penalty to align with that of the main offender, Shri Shabeer Shareef, to &8377;50,000.

7. While finding no other issues with the impugned order, the Tribunal partially allowed the appeal by adjusting the penalty amount. The judgment highlighted the importance of the CHA's responsibility in ensuring compliance with customs regulations during importation processes under schemes like the Transfer of Residence.