2017 (1) TMI 278 - AT - Customs

Imposition of penalty u/s 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 on Moongipa Roadways Pvt. Ltd. and Jabee & Co. - Held that - The Customs authorities were permitted to seal the trucks knowing fully well that the trucks could not have moved to Kolkata directly and the Customs seals on the trucks were broken and the goods were unloaded and kept in their godown. The learned counsel is not able to explain how and why the goods were unloaded in the Bhiwandi godown and why the Customs seals were broken. In the absence of any plausible explanation for these findings of the adjudicating authority, we hold that the appellant, Moongipa Roadways Pvt. Ltd., has no case. As regards Jabee & Co., the CHA, As a regular CHA, they should know what type of documents needs to be prepared for the movement of the goods in bond; also they have not controverted the statement of Shri Vijay Bhuwania, the mastermind, who had stated that the CHA was aware of the entire exercise of diversion of the goods. We do not find any reason to interfere in the order of the adjudicating authority. Penalty upheld - appeal rejected - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against penalties imposed under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 for aiding and abetting improper imports.

Analysis:
The appeals arose from penalties imposed by the adjudicating authority under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The first appellant, Moongipa Roadways Pvt. Ltd., argued that they acted in good faith and were not aware of the goods being liable for confiscation. However, the tribunal found that the charges against them were valid. The manager of their godown admitted to the unauthorized presence of the imported goods, which were supposed to be in bond movement to Kolkata. Despite claims of following instructions, the tribunal noted that the goods were loaded for Kolkata, but later found in the godown with broken Customs seals, without a satisfactory explanation. Consequently, the tribunal held that Moongipa Roadways Pvt. Ltd. had no valid defense.

Regarding the second appellant, Jabee & Co., the Customs House Agent (CHA), they were found to have mentioned the wrong recipient on the lorry challan, indicating awareness of the diversion of goods. The tribunal observed that as experienced CHAs, they should have known the correct procedures for goods in bond movement. Additionally, a statement from the mastermind of the diversion implicated the CHA in the scheme. Consequently, the tribunal upheld the adjudicating authority's decision regarding Jabee & Co., finding no grounds for interference.

In conclusion, the tribunal affirmed the correctness and legality of the impugned order, upholding the penalties imposed under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appeals were rejected, and the judgment was pronounced on 19.12.2016.