2023 (8) TMI 18 - AT - Customs

Revocation of Customs Broker License - forfeiture of security deposit - penalty - export of 500 PP bags of goods declared as Organic Herbal Plinth Filing Termiticide - overvalued goods - declared specifications were at great deviance with respect to the specifications mentioned in the tax invoice available with the shipping bills - CHA not verified the premises of the exporter or made him cooperate with the investigation - HELD THAT - There was no concrete proof of a blame worthy conduct by the appellant to impose penalties. Penalties should not be imposed merely because a legal provision provides for it. It is a discretion of the authority to be exercised judicially and in consideration of all the relevant circumstances, bound by the rules of reason and law. Such action cannot be taken on assumptions and presumptions devoid of concrete facts showing wrongdoing. The impugned order merits to be quashed and is ordered accordingly - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are related to the penalty imposed on a Customs Broker for alleged violations under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018, and the forfeiture of a security deposit.

Details of the Judgment:

Issue 1: Alleged Violations and Penalty Imposed
The appellant, a Customs Broker, filed shipping bills for the export of goods declared as 'Organic Herbal Plinth Filing Termiticide'. The goods were detained and found to be overvalued, leading to a Show Cause Notice being issued. The adjudicating authority imposed a penalty of Rs.50,000/- and ordered forfeiture of Rs.25,000/- out of the security deposit. The appellant challenged this penalty before the Tribunal.

Details:
- The appellant argued that they were not aware of the exporter mis-declaring the goods and had followed proper procedures.
- The appellant highlighted that the exporter and freight forwarder had threatened them when requested for documents and cooperation.
- The appellant contended that they had obtained necessary authorizations and KYC documents from the exporter, as required by law.
- The appellant also mentioned that physical verification of premises is not a legal requirement, and they had taken steps to verify the exporter's functioning.
- The Tribunal noted that penalties should not be imposed without concrete proof of wrongdoing and that discretion must be exercised judiciously.

Decision:
The Tribunal found that there was insufficient evidence of wrongdoing by the appellant to justify the penalties imposed. The impugned order was quashed, and the appeal succeeded.

This judgment highlights the importance of following proper procedures and exercising discretion judiciously when imposing penalties on Customs Brokers for alleged violations. It also emphasizes the need for concrete evidence of wrongdoing before penalizing individuals or entities in such cases.