9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (8) TMI 1513 - AT - CustomsPenalty on CHA u/s 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 - Misdeclaration of MRP/RSP for the said goods - Held that - In any case, on the very same set of facts proceedings have been initiated against the appellant under CBLR, 2013. The said proceedings concluded by the order dated 19-4-2016 issued by Commissioner of Customs (General), New Delhi - in view of categorical finding of the Licensing Authority on the activities of the appellant, which are on the same set of facts involving the same importation, penal action under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act is not legally sustainable. There is no justification for a penal proceedings against the appellant resulting in penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty on a licensed Customs Broker for misdeclaration of MRP/RSP on imported goods. 2. Applicability of penal action under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the Customs Broker. 3. Discrepancy in findings between proceedings under Customs Act, 1962 and CBLR, 2013. 4. Role and responsibilities of the importer versus the Customs Broker in affixing MRP on imported goods. Analysis: 1. The judgment deals with the imposition of a penalty on a licensed Customs Broker for misdeclaration of MRP/RSP on imported goods. The appellant, a Customs Broker, filed a Bill of Entry for clearance of imported deodorants and perfumes on behalf of an importer. The enquiry revealed possible short payment of customs duty due to misdeclaration of MRP/RSP, leading to the confiscation of imported items, confirmation of differential duty, and imposition of penalties, including a penalty of &8377;1,00,000 on the appellant under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. The appellant contested the penalty, arguing that the responsibility for determining and affixing MRP lies with the importer, not the Customs Broker. They highlighted that the proceedings under CBLR, 2013 found no contravention against the appellant, emphasizing that penal action against the Customs Broker for filing the Bill of Entry based on available documents was unwarranted. The appellant sought the penalty to be set aside based on these grounds. 3. The appellate tribunal considered the arguments presented by both sides and reviewed the appeal records. They noted that the proceedings under CBLR, 2013 had found no contravention against the appellant regarding affixing MRP/RSP on imported goods. The tribunal emphasized that penal action under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 was not legally sustainable based on the facts presented. The tribunal also highlighted that the responsibility for affixing MRP on imported goods lies with the importer and not the Customs Broker, further supporting the decision to set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant. 4. The tribunal concluded that there was no justification for penal proceedings against the appellant, especially considering the findings of the Licensing Authority in the proceedings under CBLR, 2013. They emphasized that the details of MRP and affixing such MRP on imported goods are the importer's responsibility, and there was no evidence of wilful misdeclaration by the Customs Broker. Therefore, the impugned order imposing a penalty on the appellant was set aside, and the appeal was allowed based on these considerations.
|
