9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Alleged over-valuation of exported goods by a customs house agent, Appellant's awareness and involvement in the valuation process, Appellant's contention of lack of awareness, Tribunal's findings on the Appellant's knowledge and actions, Appellant's argument regarding penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962.
The judgment involves the case of a customs house agent acting on behalf of an exporter, where the Customs authorities found the exported goods to be over-valued by the exporter. The Appellant had signed relevant documents related to the over-valuation, claiming he was unaware and acted as per the exporter's instructions. However, the Tribunal noted that the Appellant admitted being aware of the exporter's intention regarding the valuation of goods, as per the exporter's explanation that the value declared would be accepted by Customs authorities. The Tribunal also found that despite no authorization in a letter from the exporter, the Appellant signed various shipping documents, leading to the rejection of the appeal. The Appellant's counsel argued that the show cause notice did not allege a violation of Section 113 of the Customs Act, 1962, making the penalty under Section 114 unsustainable. However, the Court observed that this argument was not raised before the appellate authorities, including the Tribunal, and was not part of the grounds of appeal. Therefore, the Court declined to entertain this argument at that stage. Ultimately, the Court concluded that no substantial question of law arose in the appeal, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The judgment highlights the importance of raising relevant legal arguments at the appropriate stages of the legal proceedings and the consequences of failing to do so in challenging penalties under the Customs Act, 1962.
|
