2018 (8) TMI 39 - AT - Customs

Penalty u/s 114 and 114AA of CA on appellant, employee of CHA-Firm - mis-declaration of exported goods - Held that - It is not established by Revenue that appellant had prior knowledge of mis-declaration of goods. The Customs Authorities allowed Let Export Order' on the basis of documents. In similar manner the appellant also prepared documents on the basis of information given to him. Therefore, it is not established that the appellant either connived or abated in the offence allegedly committed by exporter - penalties set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Imposition of penalties under Sections 114 and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 on the appellant for misdeclaration of goods in export consignments.

Analysis:
1. Brief Facts and Background: The appellant, a 'G' card holder employee of a CHA firm, was involved in the export of goods from ICD Dadri for two different exporters. In both cases, the goods declared for export were found to be different upon examination than what was mentioned in the shipping bills, leading to penalties being proposed under Sections 114 and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962.

2. Adjudication and Appeal Process: The Original Authority imposed penalties of ?2 lakhs under Section 114 and ?5 lakhs under Section 114AA on the appellant, which were upheld by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in separate orders dated 22.06.2015 and 21.07.2015. Consequently, the appellant filed appeals before the Tribunal challenging the imposition of penalties.

3. Legal Considerations: The Tribunal carefully reviewed the case record and observed that the appellant, acting on instructions from the Managing Director and based on the information provided, prepared the necessary documents for export. It was noted that the Customs Authorities had issued 'Let Export Order' based on these documents, indicating that the appellant did not have prior knowledge of the misdeclaration of goods. The Tribunal found no evidence to suggest that the appellant was involved in or aware of the misdeclaration of goods by the exporters.

4. Decision and Rationale: In light of the above considerations, the Tribunal set aside the penalties imposed on the appellant and allowed both appeals. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant did not connive or abet in the offense allegedly committed by the exporters, as he acted in good faith based on the information provided to him.

5. Conclusion: The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT ALLAHABAD, delivered by Member (Technical) Anil G. Shakkarwar, highlights the importance of establishing intent and knowledge in cases of alleged customs violations. The decision underscores the need for clear evidence linking an individual to any wrongdoing before imposing penalties under the Customs Act, 1962.