2024 (4) TMI 244 - AT - Customs

Levy of penalty u/s 112(a) of the Customs Act - alleging that the appellants have not checked the antecedents before undertaking the responsibility of a CHA for the consignments - Misdeclaration of goods - HELD THAT - On examination of the goods, it was found that the goods had been mis-declared. However, no allegation against the appellants has been made during the course of investigation to the effect that the appellants were having the details of the goods imported by the importer or having any connivance with the importer for mis-declaration of goods in question. Moreover, for the allegation with regard to checking of the antecedents of the importer or its representative, proceedings are warranted under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, which proceedings against the appellant have already been dropped. Thus, no penalty is imposable on the appellants as held by this Tribunal in the case of Chandan Chatterjee v. Commissioner of Customs (Port), 2024 (1) TMI 682 - CESTAT KOLKATA . In view of this, we drop the penalty imposed on the appellants - In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the appeals are allowed with consequential relief, if any.

Summary

Issues involved:
Appeal against penalties imposed u/s 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 for not checking antecedents of importer or representative before clearance as CHA.

Summary:
The appellants challenged penalties imposed on them for not verifying the antecedents of the importer or its representative before clearing a consignment as Customs House Agents (CHA). The impugned order was based on the misdeclaration of goods in the import documents. The appellants, employees of a shipping agency, argued that similar charges led to the suspension of their Customs Broker License, which was later revoked by the Calcutta High Court. They contended that the allegations should have been pursued under Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, not Customs Act. The respondent supported the penalties. The Tribunal noted that the only basis for penalties was the failure to check antecedents, not connivance with misdeclaration. Since proceedings under Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations were dropped, no penalties were justified, citing precedent in Chandan Chatterjee v. Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata. Consequently, the penalties were revoked, and the appeals were allowed.