9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (9) TMI 449 - AT - CustomsLevy of Penalty u/s 112 (a) of the Customs Act on the employees of CHA - Absolute Confiscation - Smuggling - declared goods were 144 air conditioners as per the bill of entry, however, on inspection, it was found to contain 65 air conditioners, 940 cylinders of Refrigerant 22 gas and 315 Sony Play Stations - prohibited goods or not - HELD THAT - No case of aiding and abetting is made out against this appellant. This appellant as an employee of the CHA company was working as per the instructions given to him by his senior. There is no case made out of any abnormal gain by the appellant to indicate any collusion or abetment on his part with the importer of the consignment under dispute Shri Goyal and/or Shri Brijesh Mishra. Penalty has been imposed mechanically without application of mind - Accordingly, the penalty imposed under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act is set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues: Mis-declaration in Bill of Entry, Confiscation of goods, Penalty imposition under Section 112(a) of the Act, Allegations of aiding and abetting, Appeal against penalty imposition.
Analysis: 1. The appellant, an employee of a Customs House Agent (CHA) company, filed an appeal against an order-in-original which held that mis-declaration in the Bill of Entry led to the confiscation of prohibited goods and imposition of penalties on various parties, including the appellant. 2. The Tribunal noted that the impugned order involved multiple parties and directed the registry to check for any related appeals. No other appeals were found against the impugned order. 3. After hearing the parties and examining the record, the Tribunal proceeded with the case. 4. The case originated from specific information about smuggling activities by M/s Brij Enterprises. A container was detained and found to contain mis-declared goods, including prohibited items, leading to a show cause notice alleging collusion with the smuggling racket's kingpin. 5. Statements of various individuals, including the appellant, were recorded during the investigation, detailing their roles in the clearance process and interactions with the importer and other involved parties. 6. The appellant's statement highlighted his responsibilities in handling import documents, cash transactions, and container clearance activities, emphasizing his acquaintance with the importer and his belief in following instructions. 7. The Director of the CHA company failed to appear before the Customs Officer, contributing to the allegations of aiding and abetting against the appellant and others. 8. The Tribunal considered arguments from both sides, with the appellant's counsel emphasizing the lack of evidence showing personal gain or collusion on the appellant's part, attributing responsibility to the CHA company. 9. After evaluating the contentions, the Tribunal found no evidence of aiding and abetting by the appellant. It concluded that the penalty imposed lacked justification and set it aside under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act. 10. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, granting the appellant consequential benefits as per the law, with the judgment pronounced on 10.09.2020.
|
