1998 (1) TMI 332 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Imposition of penalty on appellants for attempting to export goods without a valid APEDA Certificate, validity of the APEDA Certificate, reliance on retracted statement, penalty on Customs House Agent (CHA) and Manager, excessive penalty on CHA compared to exporter's penalty, liability of CHA under Section 147(3) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
The appellants challenged the penalty imposed by the C.C.E. (A) for attempting to export goods without a valid APEDA Certificate. The appellants argued that they had a valid certificate, pointing out discrepancies in the assessment process and the retracted statement regarding the certificate's expiration. They emphasized that the APEDA Certificate was produced before assessment, questioning the lack of consideration for all required documents by the C.C.E. (A). The appellants contended that the retracted statement lacked evidentiary value and that penalizing both the CHA and Manager was unjustified once the CHA was penalized.

In response, the SDR highlighted the appellants' admission of returning the APEDA Certificate to exporters, who claimed misplacement, implying the certificate was not with the department. The SDR argued that the appellants' actions confirmed the charge against them, emphasizing the absence of coercion or threat in their statements. The SDR dismissed the appellants' post hoc claims of coercion and non-receipt of documents as an afterthought, asserting the validity of the charge based on the appellants' own admissions.

The judgment considered the submissions and upheld the penalty on the CHA, citing the appellants' admission of moving cargo without a valid certificate as substantial evidence. The judgment emphasized the voluntary nature of the appellants' statement, admissible under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. It concluded that the penalty on the CHA was justified based on the evidence and the appellants' actions, setting aside the penalty on the Manager. The judgment clarified the liability under Section 147(3) of the Customs Act, 1962, attributing responsibility to the CHA for the consequences, thereby affirming the penalty on the CHA.

The judgment addressed the argument regarding the penalty amount, noting the reduction from Rs. 2 lakhs to Rs. 1 lakh, in line with the exporter's penalty. It explained the liability of the CHA under Section 147(3) and set aside the penalty on the Manager, maintaining the penalty on the CHA as appropriate. The judgment emphasized that the order's applicability was limited to the present case, not affecting any future proceedings against the appellants.