2017 (3) TMI 405 - AT - Customs

Imposition of penalty u/s 114 (i) - Smuggling - attempt to export red sanders, in the container meant for export of Natural Slate Stones - Held that - Appellant has played an important part in the entire operation by unauthorizedly handling customs documents and customs related work and stepping into the shoes of a CHA by handling the entire customs related work - It is difficult to conceive that in the normal course, a person handling the CHA work and present during examination would not be able to make out the difference between the Natural Slate Stones , (declared cargo) and red sanders logs (cargo actually attempted to be exported) - the appellant is certainly not master mind and/or actual beneficiary of the attempted illegal export. Nonetheless, without the appellant s role, such attempted export of red sanders logs would have been possible - The appellant has committed acts of commission and omission which make him liable to penalty imposed u/s 114 (i) of the act. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of goods and penalties imposed under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Role and liability of the appellant in the attempted illegal export of red sanders logs.
3. Appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the appellant's innocence and liability.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the interception of a container declared as "Natural Slate Stones" but found to contain "Red Sanders Logs" for export. Adjudication proceedings were initiated against the exporter and other individuals, including the appellant, who faced penalties under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962. The original authority ordered absolute confiscation of the goods and imposed penalties. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the decision, leading to the present appeal before the forum.

2. During the hearing, the appellant's advocate argued that the appellant had no role in the attempted export of red sanders logs and was only involved as a Customs House Agent (CHA) for the export of "Natural Slate Stones." The advocate claimed the appellant was unaware of the substitution of goods and was innocent of the offense committed by the exporter. In contrast, the respondent contended that the appellant's actions, as detailed in the Order-in-Original (OIO) and Order-in-Appeal (OIA), demonstrated their active involvement in the unauthorized handling of customs documents and failure to verify the exporter's credentials. The respondent argued that the appellant's role was crucial in facilitating the illegal export.

3. The Commissioner (Appeals) extensively analyzed the roles of the implicated individuals and concluded that the attempted smuggling operation was carefully planned, involving various parties. The appellant was found to have played a significant part by handling customs-related work without proper authorization and due diligence. The Commissioner upheld the original authority's decision based on the appellant's actions, including arranging the container, processing export documents, and being present during the stuffing of goods. The appellant's presence during the examination of the goods further indicated their awareness of the discrepancy between the declared cargo and the actual illegal export. While the appellant may not have been the mastermind, their actions were deemed essential for the attempted export to occur, leading to the imposition of penalties under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act. The appeal was dismissed based on the appellant's failure to demonstrate innocence and clean hands in the matter.