2018 (3) TMI 1740 - AT - Customs

Restoration of appeal - order passed ex-parte - principles of natural justice - Circular dated 18-11-2013 - imposition of penalty u/s 112 of the Customs Act 1962 - Held that - The circular is pertaining to all matters regarding Clearing agents and CHAs and shall be heard by a Division Bench. In the present case the appellant filed the appeal against imposition of penalty of 1 lakh u/s 112 of the Customs Act 1962. Hence it is not a case of CHA under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations 2013. The main noticee has already acted upon the notice and in such circumstances the plea of the appellant herein who is a co-noticee has no substance - there is no reason to recall the final order - restoration application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Application for restoration of Appeal No. Cus/75650/2014 dismissed ex parte - Consideration of grounds of appeal - Imposition of penalties on appellants - Appellant's responsibility as a Customs House Agent - Jurisdiction of DRI officer to issue Show Cause Notice - Appeal against penalty under Customs Act, 1962 - Applicability of Circular regarding Division Bench hearing for CHAs.

Analysis:

The Applicant sought restoration of Appeal No. Cus/75650/2014, which was dismissed ex parte. The Appellant contended that the order was passed ex parte and urged for a recall, citing the Delhi High Court's decision in M/s. Mangali Impex Ltd. v. Union of India. The Appellant argued that the Tribunal did not consider the grounds of appeal submitted, requesting a fresh hearing on merit. However, the Tribunal had already decided the appeal on merit initially, as per the order dated 7-7-2017.

The findings of the Commissioner of Customs regarding the penalties imposed on the appellants were crucial. The involvement of the Customs House Agent (CHA) in the case was highlighted. The CHA's failure to disclose crucial information regarding the import of goods led to penalties under the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposition on the appellant, emphasizing the appellant's accountability despite citing various case laws in their appeal.

The appellant, being a Customs House Agent, raised a procedural issue regarding the hearing jurisdiction. The appellant's counsel argued for a Division Bench hearing based on a circular, but the Tribunal clarified that the circular applied to matters concerning Clearing agents and CHAs, not the present case which involved a penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Regarding the jurisdiction of the DRI officer to issue the Show Cause Notice, the Tribunal noted the acceptance and settlement of the case by the main noticee before the Settlement Commission. As the main noticee had already acted on the notice, the appellant's plea as a co-noticee was deemed unsubstantiated. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the application for restoration, affirming the earlier order.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision emphasized the accountability of the appellant as a Customs House Agent, upheld the penalty imposition, clarified the hearing jurisdiction, and rejected the application for restoration based on the main noticee's actions. The legal principles and precedents cited were considered, leading to the dismissal of the appeal for restoration.