2008 (11) TMI 88 - HC - Customs

Penalty on CHA - Mis-declaration of metal object concealed in the baggage of the passenger as plastic idol - passenger has stated in her reply that CHA was aware of the contents of the unaccompanied baggage since CHA prepared entire documents, he must have noticed items and should have guided passenger as well as dept. CHA failed to discharge his duty - in writ jurisdiction, HC cannot interfere with the concurrent findings of fact by the departmental authorities - appeal fails

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Custom House Agent's liability for misdeclaration of antique items in export documentation.
2. Imposition of penalty under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Interpretation of Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004, specifically clause 13(d).
4. Comparison of the present case with a previous judgment regarding misdeclaration of goods.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The case involved a Custom House Agent (CHA) who misdeclared an antique Buddha statue in export documentation, which was later found to be antique and prohibited for export under the Import and Export Policy of 2000-2001. The CHA failed to declare all items, including metal ornaments and belts, in the shipping bill, leading to a penalty being imposed under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962.

2. The Adjudicating Authority initially imposed a fine of Rs. 3 lakhs on the CHA, which was later reduced to Rs. 25,000 by the Appellate Authority. Further, the Revisional Authority reduced the penalty to Rs. 10,000. The courts upheld the penalties, considering the CHA's responsibility to ensure accurate documentation and declaration of goods for export.

3. The CHA argued that they were not liable under the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004, specifically referring to clause 13(d), which required advising clients to comply with customs provisions. However, the court found that the CHA failed to fulfill this obligation, leading to the misdeclaration of the antique item in the present case.

4. A comparison was drawn with a previous judgment involving misdeclaration of goods, where the distinction between items was difficult to ascertain without detailed examination. In contrast, in the present case, the nature of the antique Buddha statue could have been determined through prima facie examination, making the CHA's misdeclaration more significant.

In conclusion, the court upheld the penalties imposed on the CHA, emphasizing their duty to ensure accurate declaration of goods for export and compliance with customs regulations. The court found no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact by the departmental authorities, confirming the order of the Revisional Authority.