2017 (5) TMI 1279 - AT - Customs

Penalty u/s 114 (i), of CA, 1962 on CHA - export of prohibited goods - the exporter as well as the appellant CHA, had attempted export sub standard rice of non-Basmati quality prohibited by DGFT, vide N/N. 38(RE-2007)/2004-2009 dated 15/10/2007 - Held that - no serious allegation have been made against the appellant-CHA. He accepts that he has been callous and/or negligent - no particular clause of the Regulation 13 of the CHALR, 2004 which have been violated, has been pointed out in the SCN - penalty not sustainable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant-CHA.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to penalty imposed under Section 114 (i) of Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
The appellant, a Customs House Agent (CHA), challenged the penalty imposed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs under Section 114 (i) of the Customs Act, 1962. The case revolved around the examination of goods presented through the appellant-CHA for export. It was discovered that while the bags of rice in the front row were of good quality-Basmati, the rest were of poor quality, indicating an attempt to export substandard rice prohibited by DGFT. The goods were tested, and it was confirmed that they did not meet the requirements of Basmati rice. Statements from the exporter and supplier revealed that there was an error in loading non-Basmati rice due to labor mistakes. Despite allegations of the CHA's involvement, the Tribunal found no serious allegations against the appellant-CHA. The Tribunal noted that no specific violation of Regulation 13 of the CHALR, 2004 was pointed out, and the penalty imposed was deemed unsustainable.

The appellant contended that the Commissioner's observation of the appellant-CHA acting callously and misleading facts was unfounded. It was argued that the appellant-CHA was not obligated to examine goods under Regulation 13 of CHALR, 2004, and no specific clause violation was highlighted. The appellant emphasized the vagueness of the allegations and the lack of active involvement to support setting aside the penalty. Despite the absence of the appellant-CHA during the hearing, the Tribunal considered the submissions of the revenue's learned A.R. and found that no serious allegations were made against the appellant-CHA. The Tribunal noted the absence of specific clause violations under Regulation 13 of CHALR, 2004 in the show cause, leading to the conclusion that the imposed penalty was not sustainable.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeals filed by the appellant-CHA, setting aside the penalty imposed on them. The judgment highlighted the lack of substantial allegations against the appellant-CHA and the absence of specific clause violations under Regulation 13 of CHALR, 2004, leading to the decision that the penalty was not justifiable.