2016 (3) TMI 6 - AT - Customs

Imposition of penalty on CHA- Indulging with importers in undervaluation- Importers approached Settlement Commission directly for settlement of dispute and Settlement Commission allowed the settlement- Appellant only acting as CHA did not approached Settlement Commission because of no information- Held that By relying on the decision taken by the Mumbai Tribunal in case of S.K. Colombowala 2007 (7)TMI 514 - CESTAT, MUMBAI, the case against all co-noticees comes to an end once the order of settlement is passed in respect of the person entitled to file application before the Settlement Commission. Therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay penalty as the co-noticees have not been imposed any penalty by the Settlement Commission. - Decided in favour of the petitioner

Summary

Issues Involved:
- Imposition of penalty on a Custom House Agent (CHA) for aiding undervaluation by importers
- Liability of a CHA when importers settle with Settlement Commission
- Interpretation of relevant case law in determining penalty on co-noticees

Analysis:

Issue 1: Imposition of penalty on a Custom House Agent (CHA)
The appeal was filed against the Commissioner's order imposing a penalty of Rs. 20,000 on the appellant, a CHA, for allegedly aiding and abetting importers in undervaluation while presenting the bill of entry. The appellant acted as a CHA for several importers involved in importing clear sheet glasses, reflective glass, and aluminium mirrors. The searches conducted on the importers' premises revealed undervaluation issues, leading to the penalty imposition on the CHA by the Commissioner.

Issue 2: Liability of a CHA when importers settle with Settlement Commission
The appellant argued that they were unaware of the settlement proceedings initiated by the importers with the Settlement Commission. The importers directly approached the Settlement Commission for dispute resolution, and the Commission allowed the settlement. The appellant, acting in the normal course of their duties as a CHA, filed the bill of entry without knowledge of the undervaluation by the importers. The appellant contended that once the main notices settled the matter through the Settlement Commission, the CHA, as a co-noticee, should not be penalized.

Issue 3: Interpretation of relevant case law in determining penalty on co-noticees
The appellant cited case law to support their argument, referring to the decision in the case of S.K. Colombowala vs. CC(I), Mumbai, where it was held that once settlement is reached with one co-noticee, penalties cannot be imposed on other co-noticees. This legal precedent was further supported by decisions in subsequent cases like Vinod Tomar vs. CC(E), Mumbai, and Virender Bansal vs. CC(ICD), New Delhi. The Tribunal, considering the case law cited and the meager penalty amount of Rs. 20,000, concluded that the appellant, as a co-noticee, should not be held liable for the penalty since the Settlement Commission did not impose penalties on other co-noticees.

In the final judgment, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order, ruling that the appellant, as a CHA, was not liable to pay the penalty due to the settlement reached by the main notices with the Settlement Commission. The decision was based on the legal principles established in the cited case law and the absence of penalties on other co-noticees.