2016 (5) TMI 913 - AT - Customs

Levy of penalty on CHA - Import of Ivory and its articles - Prohibited under Foreign Trade Policy and under Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 - Mis-declaration of goods and value of goods - Two invoices - Held that - nothing found on record which suggests that appellant was aware of the content and nature of goods which was subsequently found as two statues made of ivory and other materials which was prohibited. As per Section 114AA, the penalty can be imposed only if a person has knowledge about the false declaration in the documents. As I stated above, as regard the content and nature of the goods and value thereof, the appellant had no knowledge. Therefore, they are not liable for penalty under Section 114AA. As regard findings of the Ld. Commissioner that the CHA has not followed the rule 13(d), (e) and (o) of CHALR 2004, however the Ld. Commissioner has not given reason how the appellant has contravened the aforesaid provision. Therefore, it cannot be alleged that the appellant has not followed the provision of Rule 13(d), (e) and (o) of CHALR, 2004 supported by various judgments. - Decided in favour of appellant

Summary

Issues: Mis-declaration of goods and value; Penalty imposed under Section 114AA of Customs Act, 1962; Role of Customs House Agent (CHA) in clearance process.

Mis-declaration of goods and value:
The case involved a scenario where a Bill of Entry was filed for clearance of imported goods declared as "Pair of Porcelain Dolls" but were later found to be statues made of natural ivory, a prohibited item under the Foreign Trade Policy and Wildlife (Protection) Act. The appellant, a Customs House Agent (CHA), was penalized under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962, for alleged mis-declaration of goods and value. The appellant argued that they were not involved in the mis-declaration and acted in good faith based on the documents provided to them. The appellant highlighted discrepancies in the invoices received and the corrective actions taken to rectify them, emphasizing their lack of knowledge about the actual content of the goods.

Penalty imposed under Section 114AA of Customs Act, 1962:
The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) upheld the penalty imposed on the appellant under Section 114AA. The appellant contended that the penalty was unjust as they were not aware of the mis-declaration and had acted diligently in the clearance process. The appellant's representative cited relevant judgments to support their argument that the penalty was unwarranted based on the facts of the case. The Revenue, represented by the Assistant Commissioner, maintained that the penalty was rightly imposed considering the appellant's role as a CHA and their knowledge of the discrepancies in the invoices.

Role of Customs House Agent (CHA) in clearance process:
The Tribunal analyzed the role of the CHA in the clearance process and the specific actions taken by the appellant in response to the discrepancies in the invoices. The Tribunal noted that the penalty on the CHA was primarily based on the submission of two invoices with the same number but different consignees. However, it was observed that the appellant had rectified the discrepancies and submitted the corrected invoice for clearance. The Tribunal found no evidence to suggest that the appellant was aware of the actual content of the goods being imported. The Tribunal concluded that the penalty under Section 114AA was not justified in this case, as the appellant had acted in good faith and had not knowingly made false declarations. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant, M/s. Kismat Clearing Agency.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues of mis-declaration of goods and value, the imposition of penalty under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962, and the role of the Customs House Agent in the clearance process, providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal proceedings and the Tribunal's decision.