9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (10) TMI 826 - AT - CustomsLevy of penalty on CHA and Clearing and forwarding agents - Role restricted to filing of the documents - HELD THAT - There is no allegation in the impugned order that they have violated any of the provisions of the CHA Regulations - the contention of the Appellants agreed upon that they cannot be held responsible for over invoicing if any, done by the exporter for the purpose of getting excess drawback. It is found that this Tribunal has already decided similar issue in M/S. UNITED CUSTOM HOUSE AGENCY, SHRI RAJ KUMAR SHAW, PROPRIETOR, M/S. SUNDARY FASHION, AND SHRI PRAKASH GHOSH, PROPRIETOR, M/S. OVERSEAS SHIPPING AGENCY, PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE) , KOLKATA 2022 (9) TMI 862 - CESTAT KOLKATA , wherein the orders passed by the Lower Authorities were set aside. Following the ratio of the said decisions, no penalty is imposable on the Appellants, as they have no role in the alleged offence - the penalties imposed on the Appellants in the impugned order set aside - appeal allowed.
Issues involved: Appeal against penalty imposed for improper export.
Summary: Issue 1: Penalty imposed on the CHA and Proprietor for improper export The appeals were filed against the penalty imposed on the CHA and the Proprietor for their role in improper export as per the Order-in-Original dated 12.01.2016 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Prev). The penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- each was imposed under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962. Details: The exporter was alleged to have resorted to overvaluation for excess draw back. The CHA's role was limited to filing documents provided by the exporter, with no irregularities found in the documents. The seized consignments matched the invoices and documents filed. The Proprietor, a G-Card holder without a valid CHA license, assisted in document filing and cooperated with authorities. Both parties denied involvement in any over-invoicing by the exporter. Issue 2: Appellants' defense against penalty The Appellants argued that similar investigations against other exporters had been set aside by the Tribunal in previous cases. They contended that they should not be held responsible for the alleged offense as their role was limited to filing documents and they had no part in any over-invoicing. Details: The Appellants highlighted that their role was that of CHA and Clearing and Forwarding agents, limited to document filing. They emphasized that no violation of CHA Regulations was found against them. Citing previous Tribunal decisions setting aside penalties in similar cases, the Appellants argued that they should not be penalized for the exporter's actions. Judgment: After hearing both sides and examining the appeal documents, the Tribunal found that the Appellants' role was restricted to filing documents and they were not responsible for any over-invoicing by the exporter. Referring to previous decisions, the Tribunal set aside the penalties imposed on the Appellants, concluding that they had no role in the alleged offense. Conclusion: The appeals filed by the Appellants were allowed, with any consequential relief granted as per the law.
|
