2016 (10) TMI 563 - AT - Customs

Imposition of penalties u/s 112 of the Customs Act on CHA - delivery of the imported consignment through a godown in Bhiwandi, while the said material had to be delivered to a factory premises of some other person - Held that - reliance placed on appellant s own case 2005 (5) TMI 99 - CESTAT, MUMBAI where it was held that there is no charge of an act of misdeamour having been committed by this employee of CHA licencee which would render the goods liable to confiscation while under clearance from the customers. The post import association with the delivery of goods, up to a godown in Bhiwandi, ipso facto will not cause for the violation of conditions of a DEEC import. The violation of DEEC imports would be constituted only after the goods have been diverted and not used by the DEEC licence holder/importer and thus no penalty imposed. Penalty not imposed following the judgement of appellants own case - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Imposition of penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act for abetment.

Analysis:
The appeal challenged the penalty of ?10,000 imposed on the appellant for abetment under Section 112 of the Customs Act. The adjudicating authority found against the appellant for delivering imported consignment to a godown in Bhiwandi instead of the designated factory premises. However, the appellant's counsel highlighted a previous case where the penalty against the same appellant was set aside by the Tribunal. The Tribunal noted that in the previous case, the appellant was penalized for aiding in the diversion of goods imported under the DEEC Scheme. The Tribunal found that the liability of a Customs House Agent (CHA) ends upon clearance of goods, and the appellant was not consciously aware of the diversion of goods to Bhiwandi by the import license broker. The Tribunal held that the penalty imposed on the appellant could not be sustained as there was no evidence of conscious knowledge or involvement in the diversion of goods. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the penalty and allowed the appeal based on the Division Bench's binding judgment.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found the impugned order unsustainable and set it aside, allowing the appeal against the penalty imposed on the appellant for abetment under Section 112 of the Customs Act.