9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (9) TMI 134 - AT - CustomsImposition of penalty u/s 117 of CA on CHA - it is alleged that CHA has failed to make necessary corrections in the Bills of Entry - presence of malafide intent or not - HELD THAT - The appellant before filing the Bill of Entry has sent the checklist and after confirmation from the importer, he filed the bill of Entry containing the details which were supplied to him by the importer. Further, the appellant has filed the Bill of Entry on the basis of the invoices which is given to him and if the importer has given him the wrong invoice then it is the importer who has contravened the provisions of the Act and penalty should have been imposed on the importer and not the appellant who is only acting as a CHA. Further, the department has not brought any evidence on record to prove that the appellant had the knowledge of the final invoice or the payment made by Weir to M/s. Barron. This issue has been considered in many decisions of the Tribunal and it has been consistently held that if there is no evidence of aiding and abetting against the CHA, then penalty cannot be imposed on CHA - reliance placed in the case of FALCON INDIA VERSUS COMMR. OF CUS., ICD, TUGHLAKABAD 2018 (1) TMI 1526 - CESTAT DELHI . The imposition of penalty of ₹ 50,000/- on the appellant under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 is not sustainable in law - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
- Appeal against imposition of penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962. Analysis: 1. Background: The appellant, a Custom House Agent (CHA), was authorized by an importer to clear a consignment. The appellant filed a bill of entry based on documents provided by the importer, but discrepancies were later found regarding the actual supplier and value of the goods. 2. Appellant's Defense: The appellant argued that they acted diligently based on the information provided by the importer. They contended that any misdeclaration was the importer's responsibility, not theirs. The appellant also highlighted that they were not provided with the final invoice by the importer. 3. Legal Submissions: The appellant cited various legal precedents to support their defense, emphasizing that penalty cannot be imposed on the CHA if the importer provided incorrect information and the CHA acted in good faith without intent to evade duty payment. 4. Department's Position: The department imposed a penalty on the appellant, alleging non-compliance with the Act and failure to rectify the bill of entry based on accurate information. 5. Tribunal's Decision: The Tribunal, after considering both parties' submissions, ruled in favor of the appellant. The Tribunal noted that the appellant acted on the information provided by the importer and had no knowledge of the discrepancies. The Tribunal referred to previous cases where penalties on CHAs were canceled due to lack of evidence of aiding and abetting. 6. Precedents: The Tribunal cited cases where penalties on CHAs were overturned when they acted in good faith based on information supplied by the importer. The Tribunal emphasized that penalties should be imposed on importers for providing incorrect information rather than on CHAs acting in good faith. 7. Conclusion: The Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant, stating that there was no evidence of the appellant's involvement in any wrongdoing. The decision highlighted the importance of importer responsibility in providing accurate information for customs clearance. This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the legal intricacies involved in the case and the Tribunal's thorough consideration of the facts and legal precedents before reaching a decision in favor of the appellant.
|
