9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Penalty imposed on Custom House Agent for import of goods
In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, the issue at hand was the imposition of a penalty of Rs. 20 lakhs on the appellant, who acted as a Custom House Agent for the import of certain goods. The key contention raised was whether the appellant, as a CHA, was liable for the penalty imposed based on the findings of the impugned order. The tribunal examined the provisions of Section 112 of the Customs Act and the obligations of a Custom House Agent under Regulation 14(d) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984. The tribunal highlighted that the appellant, in this case, was not directly involved in the import process nor was he under any export obligation. It was noted that the appellant's role was limited to acting as an agent and witnessing the surety bond, without any obligation to monitor the imported goods' utilization or report any illegal disposal to customs. The tribunal considered the argument put forth by the learned SDR, referencing a previous decision in the case of Kandla Clearing Agency Pvt. Ltd. v. CC., Kandla, and concluded that the findings did not align with the clauses of Section 112 of the Customs Act. It was emphasized that a witness or a CHA does not bear liability regarding imported goods and is not obligated to track their disposal or report any misuse to customs. As a result, the tribunal held that the imposition of the penalty on the appellant was not justified. Ultimately, the tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and ruling in favor of the appellant. The judgment serves as a clarification regarding the limited liability of Custom House Agents in cases of import-related penalties, emphasizing the specific obligations outlined in the relevant regulations and statutes.
|
