2010 (2) TMI 434 - AT - Customs

Penalty on Custom house agent Goods delivered to transporter on instruction of importer. Goods not reached Delhi. Held that- no evidence that CHA abeting diversion of goods, cannot invite any penal action against CHA. Penalty unsustainable hence set aside.

Summary

Issues:
1. Imposition of penalties on a Customs House Agent (CHA) for diversion of goods.
2. Allegation of CHA issuing a road challan showing goods destined for Delhi but sold in the local market.
3. Lack of evidence proving CHA's involvement in diverting goods.
4. Adjudicating authority's findings regarding the CHA's actions.

Analysis:
The judgment delivered by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Kolkata involved the imposition of penalties on a Customs House Agent (CHA) for alleged involvement in diverting goods meant for Delhi to the local market. The Tribunal noted that the appellant, a CHA, obtained clearance on behalf of the importer under an exemption Notification. The Revenue's case was based on the appellant issuing a road challan indicating goods destined for Delhi, which were later found to be sold in the local market, contrary to the declared destination.

During the hearing, the appellant contended that the goods were delivered to the transporter's godown for further transportation to Delhi as per the importer's instructions. The Tribunal observed a lack of evidence implicating the appellant in diverting the goods to the local market. The Revenue, represented by the JDR, argued that the adjudicating authority found the appellant guilty of issuing a road challan falsely showing Delhi as the destination without informing the Revenue of the goods' actual route.

The Tribunal, after considering the facts, emphasized that the appellant, as a CHA, facilitated the import of goods under a specific Notification. The road challan indicating Delhi as the destination was prepared by the appellant, and the goods were handed over to the transporter as instructed by the importer. Importantly, the Tribunal found no evidence linking the appellant to the subsequent diversion of goods to the local market. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that penal action against the appellant for any post-clearance diversion was unwarranted. Therefore, the penalties imposed on the appellant were deemed unsustainable, leading to the allowance of the appeals filed by the appellant.

In summary, the Tribunal's decision revolved around the lack of evidence implicating the CHA in diverting goods to the local market post-clearance, leading to the setting aside of the imposed penalties and the allowance of the appellant's appeals.