2024 (4) TMI 125 - AT - Customs

Levy of penalty u/s 114(iii) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 on Customs House Agent (CHA) - Misuse of signature by an employee of the CHA - attempt to avail fraudulent drawback benefits - HELD THAT - There is no dispute as regards fact of duty drawback claimed by the exporter and there is also no dispute that all the four shipping bills were filed by the appellant-CHA, though the appellant has claimed that it was one Suresh, his ex-employee who has used / misused his name by filing the shipping bills. But however, there is no evidence placed in this regard. Here in the case on hand, the appellant is found to have blamed his ex-employee, the another person for misusing his signature / office seal but, however, no supporting document is filed and hence, the initial burden stands undischarged. Section 114 empowers levy of penalty for attempt to export goods improperly and it is not specific to the exporter alone. In the case on hand, since the exporter had accepted the Order in Original by not challenging the same, the fact of improper export stands proved and the appellant s role being a CHA who filed shipping bills, thus becomes any person u/s 114 - There is also no rebuttal as to the finding of the Revenue authorities that his license had already been suspended on earlier two occasions which should have been taken seriously by the appellant to prevent further misuse and the same should have acted as a deterrent but, however, the appellant appears to have allowed the further misuse of his CHA license which has resulted in filing the shipping bills in question. There are no infirmity in the order of the first appellate authority - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment include the penalty levied under sec. 114(iii) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 on a Customs House Agent (CHA) for alleged fraudulent drawback benefits claimed by an exporter.

Summary of Judgment:

Issue 1: Alleged fraudulent drawback benefits

The Revenue detained export consignments of M/s. R.J. Associates based on intelligence regarding fraudulent drawback benefits. Examination revealed discrepancies in the declared values and actual quality of goods. The appellant, a CHA, filed the shipping bills in question. Show Cause Notice was issued alleging contravention of Customs Act provisions. The Order in Original confirmed the allegations and imposed a penalty of Rs.2 lakhs on the appellant. The first appellate authority reduced the penalty to Rs.1,00,000. The appellant contended that there was no evidence of deliberate defiance of law and no incriminating documents were found. However, the Revenue argued that the appellant allowed misuse of his license despite previous penalties and suspensions. The Tribunal found the appellant failed to discharge the initial burden of proof, and his actions as a CHA constituted an attempt to export goods improperly. The appellant's failure to lodge a complaint for forgery and previous license suspensions were considered as aggravating factors. The Tribunal upheld the penalty, dismissing the appeal.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the penalty under sec. 114(iii) and 114AA on the appellant, a CHA, for involvement in the alleged fraudulent drawback benefits scheme, citing failure to discharge the initial burden of proof and repeated misuse of CHA license despite previous penalties and suspensions.