2009 (12) TMI 419 - AT - Customs

Penalty MD of Custom House Agent stating that person who gave him export documents had prepared Annexure-A and signed shipping bills and that person had received invoice from forwarding agent. However, if he was only acting as Custom House Agent, there was no explanation how he become aware of these facts. Employee of Custom House Agent knew that this signature on shipping bill was forged by forwarding agent and the other person, but still did not take any action them. Held that- forged shipping bills in name of Custom House Agent were filed with full knowledge of its MD and employee. Imposition of penalty on Custom House Agent upheld.

Summary

Issues:
1. Imposition of penalties on the appellants by the Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi.
2. Confiscation of consignments under Section 113(i) of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Role of the CHA company and its employees in the illicit export.

Analysis:

1. Imposition of Penalties:
The Commissioner imposed penalties on the appellants, including the CHA company and its employees, based on their involvement in an illicit export scheme where the description and value of consignments were grossly mis-declared to fraudulently claim drawback. The appellants argued that they had no role in the illicit export and were not aware of the mis-declaration. However, the Department presented strong circumstantial evidence indicating the appellants' knowledge and involvement in the scheme. The Commissioner found that the appellants, including the CHA company M/s. R.U. Import-Export Pvt. Ltd., its Managing Director, and employee, were fully aware of the forged signatures on shipping bills and the mis-declaration. The Commissioner concluded that penalties were rightly imposed on the appellants under the provisions of Section 114 of the Customs Act.

2. Confiscation of Consignments:
The Commissioner, through an order dated 28-1-08, adjudicated the show cause notice and ordered the confiscation of three consignments declared to contain leather shoe uppers under Section 113(i) of the Customs Act, 1962. The penalties were also imposed on the noticees, including the appellants, for their involvement in the illicit export scheme. The Commissioner's decision was based on the findings that the appellants had full knowledge of the illicit export and were actively involved in the mis-declaration of the consignments. The penalties were imposed in accordance with the law, considering the nature of the offense and the appellants' roles in the scheme.

3. Role of the CHA Company and its Employees:
The central issue revolved around the role of the CHA company M/s. R.U. Import-Export Pvt. Ltd., its Managing Director, and employee in the illicit export. The appellants denied any involvement and claimed that they were not aware of the mis-declaration. However, statements and evidence presented during the proceedings indicated that the appellants were aware of the forged signatures on shipping bills and the mis-declared values. The Commissioner found that the CHA company and its personnel were the actual persons behind the illicit export scheme. Despite the appellants' claims of innocence, the Commissioner concluded that penalties were rightly imposed due to the appellants' knowledge and participation in the fraudulent activities.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, dismissing the appeals and affirming the imposition of penalties on the appellants for their involvement in the illicit export scheme. The judgment highlighted the importance of accountability and compliance with customs regulations to prevent fraudulent activities in international trade.