2017 (4) TMI 259 - AT - Customs

Imposition of penalties u/s 114 0f CA - Held that - the goods can be subject to confiscation if value is found to have been misdeclared. Penalty is imposed only if it is established that, in relation to the offending goods, some act is committed or is omitted to be done that leads to confiscation. Such act or omission has not been brought on record. Mere filing of bills or presentation of goods that were found to be liable to confiscation does not constitute act or omission referred to in section 114 because these are procedural requirements. None of the statements establish that the appellants were aware or participated in the procurement, packing or transportation of the goods - imposition of penalties not justified - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Imposition of penalties under section 114 of Customs Act, 1962 on customs house agent and its employee for allegedly fraudulent exports of ready-made garments.

Analysis:
The judgment involves two appeals challenging penalties imposed under section 114 of Customs Act, 1962 on a customs house agent and its employee in connection with allegedly fraudulent exports of ready-made garments. The impugned orders were based on proceedings initiated due to misdeclaration of goods in shipping bills by M/s Quality Apparels Exporters Pvt Ltd and M/s Quality Exporters. The appellants were held to have been aware of the fraudulent nature of the exports, leading to penalties totaling to ?11,00,000 and ?7,25,000, respectively.

The contention raised by the Learned Counsel for the appellants was that the ingredients required for imposing penalties under section 114 were not alleged or evidenced in the show cause notice or the impugned order. It was argued that there was no evidence to prove that the appellants were aware of the misdeclaration of goods or the substitution of the invoice. Additionally, it was highlighted that the goods had been examined and cleared by customs officers without any objection, indicating the lack of involvement or awareness on the part of the appellants.

The judgment referred to precedents such as Anil Kumar Chand v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi and Nandu Raghunath Shinde v. Commissioner of Customs (Exp), Nhava Sheva. While the relevance of the former was questioned due to the admission of misdeclaration by the agent, the latter emphasized that contravention of regulations could lead to confiscation of goods with penalties being consequential. However, in the present case, the appellants were not proven to be aware or involved in the fraudulent activities related to the exports.

The impugned order described the case against the appellants, stating that the customs house agent had declared the particulars in the shipping bills as true and correct, but misdeclaration was identified in the value of goods. Despite this, the appellants were held liable for penalties under sections 114(i) and 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, the judgment noted that mere filing of bills or handling goods subject to confiscation did not constitute the necessary act or omission for imposing penalties, especially when there was no evidence of awareness or participation in the fraudulent activities.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found no justification for the imposition of penalties on the appellants and subsequently set aside the penalties in light of the lack of evidence establishing their awareness or involvement in the fraudulent exports.