9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (4) TMI 609 - AT - CustomsPenalty for aid and abetment in Mis-declaration on CHA u/s 112(a) of the Customs Act - Exemption Notification Held That - Matter related only to penalty, the matter is taken up for final disposal In view of responsibility for the declaration made in the Bill of Entry, having been owned by the importer and in absence of any finding to the contrary and in absence of any finding to the contrary, there is error in holding the appellant CHA as a party in the alleged mis-declaration, there being no case of aiding or abetting made out against the appellant - The penalty imposed u/s 112 (a) is set aside and the appeal is allowed - The stay application is disposed of Decided in favour of Appellant.
Issues: Mis-declaration of goods leading to penalty imposition under Section 112(a) of the Act.
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI involved a case where the appellant, a Customs House Agent (CHA), had filed a Bill of Entry on behalf of a client for a consignment of jewellery items declared as gold mounting to claim exemption under Notification No. 62/2004 (Cus). The Customs department found that the goods were mis-declared as jewellery with mounting rings attached, instead of being just mounting. Consequently, the CHA was held liable for aiding and abetting in the mis-declaration and was penalized with confiscation of goods, a redemption fine, and a penalty of Rs.50,000 under Section 112(a) of the Act. The appellant contended that they acted bona fide by following the importer's instructions, who had admitted to instructing the CHA to declare the goods as gold mounting for claiming duty exemption. The appellant argued that since the responsibility for declaration rested with the importer, there was no case of aiding or abetting against the CHA. Reference was made to a Supreme Court ruling where a similar situation was considered, emphasizing that mere reliance on an exemption notification that did not apply to the goods did not constitute intentional evasion of duty. The Appellate Tribunal, after considering the arguments, concluded that the importer bore the responsibility for the declaration in the Bill of Entry. As there was no evidence of the CHA aiding or abetting in the mis-declaration, the penalty imposed under Section 112(a) was set aside. The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant, granting consequential relief. The stay application was also disposed of accordingly.
|
