2015 (12) TMI 471 - AT - Customs

Imposition of penalty under Regulation 20/22 of CHALR, 2004 - Seizure of goods - Misdeclaration - Held that - facts narrated itself would show that the suspension of license was revoked on both occasions on the finding that the appellant has complied with the KYC norms. Though the authority has stated this, the penalty is seen imposed by a self contradicting ground that however, the documents being fake, there was no due diligence on the part of the appellant. It is stated in the impugned order that there is no evidence to conclude that the CHA had prior knowledge that the importer was bogus. When the license has been revoked with a clear cut finding that the appellant has complied with the KYC norms then I do not find any justifiable ground to impose penalty. - Decided in favour of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Penalty imposed on CHA under Regulation 20/22 of CHALR, 2004 for alleged violations.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a Customs House Agent (CHA), faced a penalty of Rs. 25,000 under Regulation 20/22 of CHALR, 2004 for mis-declaration of goods in a Bill of Entry filed for an importer, M/s Rishab International. The goods were seized, and investigations revealed the importer was not operational at the provided address. The appellant's CHA license was initially suspended but later reinstated as no discrepancies were found in the documents submitted by the importer.

2. Subsequently, the appellant filed Bills of Entry for another importer, M/s Avhyuvaya Impex, Delhi. Although the goods were cleared without mis-declaration allegations, it was later discovered that the documents submitted were fake. The appellant's license was suspended again but reinstated after complying with KYC norms. However, a show cause notice was issued for non-observation of KYC norms under Regulation 13(0) of CHALR, 2004, leading to the imposition of a penalty of Rs. 25,000.

3. The Tribunal noted that the license suspension was lifted on both occasions upon confirming compliance with KYC norms. Despite this, the penalty was imposed based on contradictory grounds, claiming lack of due diligence due to fake documents, even though there was no evidence of the CHA's prior knowledge of the importer's illegitimacy. The Tribunal found the penalty unjustified as the appellant had met the KYC requirements, leading to the appeal being allowed, and the impugned order set aside.

4. The judgment emphasized the importance of complying with regulatory norms and highlighted the need for clear evidence before imposing penalties on CHAs. The decision underscored the significance of due diligence in customs-related activities and the necessity for fair and justified enforcement actions in cases involving CHAs.