2020 (5) TMI 103 - AT - Customs

Imposition of penalty on Customs Broker (CB) - non-declaration/concealment of goods - Allegation is that Mr. Santosh and Mr. Janaki Raman filed Bill of Entry without verifying KYC / antecedents of the importer and thus abetted in the import of undeclared goods - HELD THAT - When the Ministry of Commerce who has granted IE licence has exhibited the details of IEC holders in their website which can be verified, the appellant cannot be found fault when the same has been accepted to be true and correct - also, Mr. Santosh and Mr. Janaki Raman had given statements that previous consignment of the same importer also non-declared goods and therefore they ought to have been more cautious. The goods were cleared and apart from the statement there is no evidence to doubt the previous consignments. The statements were retracted. They were not subjected to cross examination though a request was made. Apart from the allegation that appellant ought to have been cautions, there is no evidence to show that appellant had any knowledge of the import of undeclared goods. When the importer consciously conceals certain facts from the Customs Broker, it cannot be presumed that the Customs Broker has abetted in such offence merely because he has not met the importer face to face. There are nothing to hold that appellant had intentionally connived or abetted in the non-declaration / concealment of the goods. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Allegation of abetment of concealment of goods by the customs broker
- Imposition of penalties under Customs Act, 1962

Analysis:
1. Allegation of Abetment of Concealment of Goods:
The case involved an appellant who was a Customs Broker filing a Bill of Entry on behalf of an importer for the clearance of goods. The Department alleged that the appellant abetted in the import of undeclared goods by not verifying the antecedents of the importer properly. The employees of the appellant were accused of filing the Bill of Entry without verifying the KYC/antecedents of the importer, leading to the import of undeclared goods. However, the appellant argued that they had made reasonable efforts to know about the importer by verifying details from the DGFT website. The appellant contended that they were not aware of the non-declaration of goods by the importer and had not abetted any offense. The Department relied on statements given by the employees, which were retracted later, and did not provide further evidence to substantiate the allegations. The Tribunal observed that there was no evidence to show that the appellant intentionally connived or abetted in the non-declaration/concealment of goods. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside with respect to the penalties imposed on the appellant.

2. Imposition of Penalties under Customs Act, 1962:
The original authority had imposed penalties on the appellant under various sections of the Customs Act, 1962, for alleged involvement in the concealment of goods by the importer. The penalties were upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) before the matter reached the Tribunal. However, after considering the arguments presented by both sides, the Tribunal found that there was no substantial evidence to prove that the appellant had intentionally participated in the non-declaration of goods. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the appellant and set aside the penalties imposed on them. The decision was made based on the lack of evidence connecting the appellant to the alleged offense, highlighting the importance of substantiated claims in legal proceedings.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment in this case focused on the lack of concrete evidence linking the appellant, a Customs Broker, to the alleged abetment of concealment of goods by the importer. The decision emphasized the importance of thorough verification procedures while also highlighting the necessity of substantial evidence to establish guilt in legal matters.