2020 (4) TMI 355 - AT - Customs

Imposition of penalty u/s 114AA of the Customs Act on the CHA - suppression of value of imported goods with an intent to evade tax - appellant is absent on call as this appeal have been heard several times, earlier also - HELD THAT - No case of connivance of the appellant CHA with the importer is made out. Further, no particular document is pointed out in the allegation which have been forged or falsified by the appellant or knowingly used by the appellant CHA having knowledge of its defect. The condition for imposition of penalty under Section 114AA are not met - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Whether penalty rightly imposed under Section 114AA of the Customs Act.

Analysis:
The case involved the imposition of a penalty of ?10,000 under Section 114AA of the Customs Act. The appellant, a Customs House Agent (CHA), was involved in the import of goods where the declared value was found to be incorrect, leading to the evasion of duty. The goods were seized by Customs officers due to suppressed values and misdeclaration of parameters like country of origin, brand, grade, and size-wise value. It was alleged that the appellant CHA aided the importer in evading duty by not verifying documents properly and not complying with CHALR regulations. The importer settled the dispute before the Settlement Commission, receiving immunity from prosecution. The appellant CHA appealed against the penalty, arguing that he had no role in valuation and did not knowingly use false documents. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal, leading to the current appeal before the Tribunal.

Upon review, the Tribunal found that there was no evidence of connivance between the appellant CHA and the importer. It was noted that there was no indication of any specific forged or falsified document knowingly used by the appellant. As per Section 114AA, the condition for imposing a penalty was not met as there was no evidence of the appellant knowingly using false material for clearance purposes. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the penalty and granting consequential benefits to the appellant.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision revolved around the lack of evidence showing the appellant's involvement in knowingly using false documents for clearance, leading to the imposition of the penalty under Section 114AA. The Tribunal's analysis focused on the specific requirements for imposing penalties under the Customs Act and found that those conditions were not met in this case, resulting in the appeal being allowed and the penalty being set aside.