9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Penalty imposed on a clearing agent and its employees for conniving with the main importer for unlawful importation of goods. Analysis: The Commissioner of Customs imposed penalties on a clearing agent and its employees for their alleged involvement in the unlawful importation of goods. The penalties were based on the grounds that the appellants connived with the main importer. The appellants contended that they were innocent and cooperated with the investigating officers by producing the President and Vice-President of the importer before them. The Commissioner observed that the impugned consignments were not recorded on the Job Register of the Clearing Agent, indicating a serious lapse. Despite later cooperation, the Commissioner held the clearing agent and its employees liable for penalties under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. During the hearing, the appellants' advocate argued that the lack of entries in the Job Register alone should not lead to the conclusion of collusion with the importers. He mentioned a post-dated certificate supplied by the importer, which they submitted to the Customs authorities. The advocate emphasized the absence of other evidence reflecting mala fides on the part of the appellants and requested the penalties to be set aside. On the other hand, the Revenue representative reiterated the adjudicating authority's reasoning, highlighting the failure to reflect importations in the Job Register as evidence of mala fides. Upon evaluation of the arguments, the Tribunal found the material relied upon by the adjudicating authority insufficient to support penalizing the appellants. Citing a Larger Bench decision, the Tribunal noted that it is not the duty of the Customs House Agent to verify the importer's credentials. They acknowledged the clearing agent's efforts during the investigation stage to locate and produce the importer before the authorities, indicating cooperation rather than collusion. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the imposition of penalties on the appellants was unjustified, setting aside that portion of the order and allowing all the appeals.
|
