2019 (1) TMI 625 - HC - Customs

Penalty u/s 112(a) of the Customs Act - case of appellant is that there was fraud by CHA, the appellant/facilitator cannot be held responsible - Held that - The record discloses that the appellant admitted that he did not even examine the basic record such as the existence or otherwise of authorization letter. He concededly helped the clearance of identical consignments in the past of the same party. Given these conspectuses of circumstance, the submissions made on his behalf that he was merely a facilitator and working outside the margin of law as it was, cannot be accepted - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Unjust imposition of penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act by CESTAT based on facilitation of fraud by the appellant.

Analysis:

1. The appellant contested the imposition of a penalty of &8377; 5 lakhs by CESTAT for contravention of Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, arguing that it was unjustified. The case revolved around the facilitation of fraud by the appellant in introducing an individual who later engaged in misdeclaration of goods through forged documents. The Commissioner held the appellant liable for actively facilitating the fraud, resulting in the penalty. CESTAT reviewed the case and reduced the penalty to &8377; 5 lakhs from the initial &8377; 10 lakhs imposed by the Commissioner. The appellant challenged this decision, claiming it was unwarranted.

2. The appellant further argued that the liability was based solely on a statement made under Section 108 of the Customs Act, contending that he should not be held responsible for the fraud committed by the Customs House Agent (CHA). The appellant asserted that he was not a registered CHA but merely a facilitator, distancing himself from direct involvement in the fraudulent activities.

3. However, the records revealed that the appellant had admitted to not verifying essential documents like the authorization letter and had previously assisted in clearing similar consignments for the same party. These circumstances indicated that the appellant was more than just a facilitator and was actively involved in the illegal activities, contrary to his claims. Consequently, the argument that he was operating outside the bounds of the law as a mere facilitator was deemed unacceptable by the court.

4. Considering the facts presented, the court found no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower authorities. It was concluded that the appellant's active involvement in facilitating the fraud, as evidenced by his actions and omissions, justified the penalty imposed by CESTAT. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and all pending applications were disposed of accordingly.