2024 (6) TMI 778 - AT - Customs

Levy of penalty u/s 112(B) of Customs Act 1962 - Liability of employee of a Customs House Agent (CHA) - Alleged role in concealing particulars that could have had effect on assessment of bill of entry - HELD THAT - It would appear that the case against the appellant is built on a statement confirming the facts relating to latest consignment that alone had been subjected to examination. There is nothing on record to establish that branded goods were contained in the earlier consignment or that the appellant was aware of similarly discrepancy in the goods handled earlier by him. Furthermore the appellant was not shown as having dealt with the goods in any manner before or after clearance to counter the claim of having been concerned only with filing of bill of entry. Goods were confiscated under section 111(m) of Customs Act 1962 which is contingent only upon incorrect that declaration in bills of entry for clearance. No evidence has been brought on record to establish that the appellant was aware of the presence of branded products in the consignment when bills were filled as only such act of omission and commission rendering goods liable for confiscation then would lead to penalty under section 112 of Customs Act 1962. There was thus neither any cause for invoking section 112(a) of Customs Act 1962 which the customs authorities desisted from proceeding with and nor is there evidence of appellant having been concerned with the goods in the manner set out in section 112(b) of Customs Act 1962. The impugned order is set aside - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues: Alleged misdeclaration of value in import, imposition of penalty under section 112(B) of Customs Act, 1962, liability of the appellant for concealing particulars affecting assessment of bill of entry.

Analysis:

The appeal was filed against the Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva's order affirming the penalty imposed under section 112(B) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the appellant for his alleged involvement in concealing particulars that could impact the assessment of the bill of entry. The appellant, represented by the learned Counsel, argued that he was not responsible for the identity of the goods and had filed the declaration based on the information provided by the importer. The Counsel contended that the findings did not meet the requirements for imposing a penalty under section 112(B) of the Customs Act, 1962.

The Authorized Representative argued that the appellant's admission of the discrepancy in the latest bill of entry, where the brand was not declared, justified the penalty due to goods being held liable for confiscation under section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962. However, the lack of examination reports and reliance solely on investigative statements raised doubts about the case against the appellant. It was highlighted that there was no evidence to prove the appellant's awareness of the branded goods in the earlier consignments or his involvement in any capacity beyond filing the bill of entry.

The Tribunal noted that the confiscation of goods under section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 was based on incorrect declarations in the bill of entry. The absence of evidence showing the appellant's knowledge of the branded products in the consignment at the time of filing the bills of entry was crucial. As per the provisions of section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962, there was no justification for invoking section 112(a) or proving the appellant's direct involvement with the goods as required under section 112(b). Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found that the appellant's role in the alleged evasion of duty was not conclusively established, and the evidence presented did not meet the legal threshold for imposing a penalty under section 112(B) of the Customs Act, 1962. The decision to set aside the penalty was based on the lack of concrete proof linking the appellant to the concealment of particulars affecting the bill of entry assessment.