9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved: Challenge to confirmation of demand of short levy u/s 28(2) of Customs Act, 1962 against Customs House Agent (CHA) and imposition of penalty u/s 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.
Summary: The Appellant, a Customs House Agent, contested the confirmation of a short levy demand u/s 28(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, amounting to Rs. 7,64,867/- against him. The authorities held the CHA liable for the short levy as he filed the Bill of Entry on behalf of the importer, rejecting the argument that the importer should bear the responsibility. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demands against the CHA but set aside the penalty imposed. The Appellant argued that the duty liability should only be on the importer, citing legal precedents including the case of C.C., Cochin v. Trivandrum Rubber Works Ltd. The Tribunal agreed with the Appellant, emphasizing that the CHA's role is limited to arranging goods release and does not extend to bearing duty liabilities. The Tribunal referred to the legal provisions of Section 147 of the Customs Act, 1962, clarifying that the liability falls on the agent of the principal, not the CHA. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with consequential relief. The ld. Counsel contended that the action of confirming duty on the CHA was contrary to legal principles established in previous judgments, highlighting the limited role of a CHA in the clearance process. The Tribunal agreed with the ld. Counsel, citing the judgments in the cases of CC, Cochin v. Trivandrum Rubber Works Ltd. and Krisons Electronic Systems Ltd. v. CC, Calcutta, which emphasized the CHA's responsibility only up to goods clearance. The Tribunal clarified that the reference to the agent u/s 147 is to the Power of Attorney holder of the importer, not the CHA, as erroneously held by the authorities. The Tribunal concluded that the authorities misapplied the law and set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal in favor of the Appellant.
|
