2018 (6) TMI 942 - AT - Customs

Forfeiture of Security Deposit - Misdeclaration of description of import goods - parts and accessories of Motor Cycle/Cycle/Carriage for disable person - Held that - The declaration made in the Bills of Entry was found incorrect inasmuch as instead of parts of complete Motor Cycle in knock-down condition was found. There is no case against CHA can be made out on these facts as CHA can only operate on the basis of documents given to him by the importer. They cannot be expected to be aware of the exact nature of the goods being imported if the documents show otherwise. It cannot be expected that the CHA could have detected any flaw in the invoices when the entire investigation was not based on any defect in the document, but on the physical examination of the goods. Failure of the appellant for verifying the correct address of the importer - Held that - The verification of importer s antecedents is part of CHA s duty. The address of the importer is part of antecedents that need to be verified by CHA - In the instant case, it was found that importer not only has fictitious address but has also the fictitious Mobile Number. This charge against the CHA for failure of diligently verifying the antecedents of the importer is proved. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against order forfeiting security amount deposited by CHA under CHALR, 2004.

Analysis:
The appellant, a Customs House Agent (CHA), challenged the order forfeiting the security amount deposited under CHALR, 2004. The appellant acted on documents provided by the importer, M/s Bhavana Overseas, in a case involving import of parts and accessories of Motor Cycle/Cycle/Carriage for disable person. The Customs Officer opined that the goods were complete Motor Cycle in knock-down condition, leading to a classification dispute. A penalty of ?50,000 was imposed on the appellant in the proceedings. However, the penalty was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) due to lack of evidence. The appellant argued that the penalty under CHALR, 2004 cannot be sustained in such circumstances.

The first charge against the appellant related to misdeclaration of goods, Country of Origin, and value. However, it was found that the appellant filed Bills of Entry based on the importer's documents, and CHA cannot be held responsible for the exact nature of goods if documents show otherwise. The charge was not proved. The second charge of failure to detect false documents was dismissed as the case was based on physical examination of goods, not manipulated invoices. The third charge of failing to verify the importer's address was upheld as importer had a fictitious address and mobile number, highlighting the CHA's duty to diligently verify importer's antecedents.

The Tribunal found no reason to interfere in the impugned order, dismissing the appeal and upholding the forfeiture of the security amount deposited by the CHA. The judgment was pronounced on 25.05.2018 by the Tribunal.