9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (10) TMI 753 - AT - CustomsLevy of penalty u/s 112 (a) of the Customs Act 1962 - Customs House Agent (CHA) - violation of Regulation 13 of CHALR 2004 - It is alleged that the appellant did not verify the antecedents of the importer - HELD THAT - There is nothing brought out from the records that the appellant had in any manner abetted the importer or the import of impugned goods. In para 53 it is clearly stated that the appellant has only assisted to file the documents on behalf of importer as required of a CHA Firm. It is not done in his individual capacity. There is no allegation that the appellant committed any act helping the import of the illegal goods. The department has not been able to establish sufficient grounds for imposing penalty under section 112 (a) of Customs Act 1962. The penalty imposed is not warranted and not justified. The impugned order is modified to the extend of setting aside the penalty of Rs. 50,000/- imposed on the appellant herein - Appeal allowed.
Issues:
The case involved the imposition of a penalty on the appellant for alleged violation of Regulations 13 of the Customs House Agent Regulation (CHALR) 2004 and section 112 (a) of the Customs Act 1962. Brief Facts: Based on information regarding mis-declaration of Chinese made mobile phones as branded items, a consignment was examined at the Air Cargo complex in Chennai. The consignment contained 6475 pieces of China mobile phones imported by M/s V J Enterprises and sold by M/s. UNI Trade. The bills of entry were filed by the appellant, a Customs House Agent (CHA) named M/s. Accurate Clearing and Shipping Agencies. Some phones did not match the inventory terms, and unbranded Chinese mobile phones with markings were found, indicating a possible IPR violation. Investigation and statements followed, leading to a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- imposed on the appellant by the original authority. Argument by Appellant: The appellant argued that the penalty was imposed without establishing any mens rea for abetment in the illegal import of goods. It was contended that the penalty under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act was not sustainable as there was no evidence of the appellant's involvement in the illegal import. The appellant's counsel emphasized that the proceedings under CHALR, 2004 should have been initiated if there was a violation, and since there was no evidence of the appellant's direct involvement, the penalty should not have been imposed. Department's Position: The Assistant Commissioner representing the department supported the findings in the impugned order. Judgment: Upon review, the Tribunal found that the penalty was imposed on the appellant for not verifying the antecedents of the importer, as required by Regulation 13 of CHALR 2004. However, it was noted that there was no evidence of the appellant abetting the importer or the import of illegal goods. The Tribunal observed that the appellant had only assisted in filing documents on behalf of the importer as required of a CHA Firm, without any individual involvement in facilitating the illegal import. As a result, the department failed to establish sufficient grounds for imposing the penalty under section 112 (a) of the Customs Act. Therefore, the penalty of Rs. 50,000/- imposed on the appellant was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential reliefs, if any. Appreciation: The Tribunal appreciated the assistance of the appellant's counsel, Ms. V. Pramila, in the proceedings.
|
