2018 (5) TMI 1067 - AT - Customs

Penalty on CHA - Regulation 20(7) and 18 of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2013 - illegal export of suspected ephedrine hydrochloride a controlled substance under NDPS Act in two consignments concealed in ladies purses and wallets - Held that - investigation has not brought forth any clinching evidence to show that the appellant herein who is a customs broker was aware of the concealment of controlled substance or abetted the exporter in the concealment - in the absence of any evidence to show that there was active involvement of the appellant in concealment of controlled substance in its export consignment, penalty set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Imposition of penalty under Regulation 20(7) and 18 of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2013 for illegal export of controlled substance.

Analysis:
The appeal was directed against the imposition of a penalty of ?50,000 on the appellant under Regulation 20(7) and 18 of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2013 for illegal export of suspected 'ephedrine hydrochloride', a controlled substance under NDPS Act. The customs authorities detected the case of illegal export concealed in ladies purses and wallets after seizure at Johannesburg airport. The investigations revealed that the appellant, a customs broker, was aware of the seizure but did not inform the customs immediately. The adjudicating authority did not find the offense grave enough to revoke the Customs Brokers License but imposed a penalty under the CBLR.

The first appellate authority found no clinching evidence to prove that the appellant was aware of the concealment of the controlled substance or abetted the exporter. Based on this finding, the penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority was deemed inappropriate as it was not in line with the law. Since there was no evidence of the appellant's active involvement in the concealment of the controlled substance, the penalty was considered unwarranted. Therefore, the penalty imposed was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

In conclusion, the judgment focused on the lack of concrete evidence linking the appellant, a customs broker, to the illegal export of the controlled substance. The appellate tribunal found the penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority to be unjustified due to the absence of proof of the appellant's active involvement in the concealment. As a result, the penalty was overturned, and the appeal was successful.