2020 (1) TMI 204 - AT - Customs

Imposition of penalties - default on the part of Customs Broker to declare the correct value of goods - During the assessment of the bill of entry, it was found by the department that the value declared by the appellant was much lower than the value of contemporaneous imports - main allegation is that that the importer had outsourced the entire operations to the appellant customers broker who had deliberately misdeclared the quantity of the goods in order to evade payment of customs duty. HELD THAT - The charge of customs duty is on the goods imported or exported. The importer or exporter is therefore liable to pay the customs duty. It does not matter if the importer or exporter entrusts this responsibility to somebody else, may be his own employee or an agent. The liability is on the importer or exporter only. The definition of importer also includes any person who holds himself out to be importer . In this case the appellant has not claimed to be importer. In fact, the bills of entry mention the name of the main importer as the importer for the consignments. Therefore, the liability of customs duty rests only upon the importer - Accordingly Section 114A also applied to the importer in this case. It cannot apply to customs broker whose offence was mis-declaring facts in the bills of entry. Section 114AA is meant for such offences and a penalty under this has already been imposed by the Deputy Commissioner which has been paid by the appellant. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Imposition of penalties under Sections 114A and 114AA of the Customs Act 1962 on a customs broker for misdeclaration of quantity in bills of entry.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a customs broker, filed bills of entry for import of goods on behalf of the importer. The quantity declared in the bills was deliberately misdeclared to reduce customs duty liability. The Deputy Commissioner issued a speaking order confiscating the consignments, enhancing duty liability, and imposing penalties under Sections 112(b)(ii) and 114AA on the importer and the appellant, respectively.

2. The importer did not contest the order, and the appellant paid the penalty under Section 114AA. The Revenue appealed, seeking imposition of penalties under Section 114A on the appellant. The first appellate authority imposed a penalty under Section 114A, leading to the current appeal.

3. The appellant contended that they had already paid the penalty under Section 114AA for the misdeclaration by their employee. They contested the imposition of penalty under Section 114A, arguing that this section applies to the person liable to pay duty or interest, i.e., the importer, not the customs broker.

4. The Revenue argued that as per the understanding, the appellant undertook to pay the customs duty, making them liable. They referenced Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations 2013, emphasizing the obligation of customs brokers to promptly pay sums due to the government.

5. The Tribunal analyzed the Customs Act, noting that the liability to pay customs duty rests with the importer or exporter, even if delegated to another party. The importer is defined to include any person holding themselves out as the importer. As the appellant did not claim to be the importer, the liability for customs duty remained with the importer.

6. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the penalty imposed under Section 114A on the appellant. The judgment clarified that Section 114A applies to the importer, while penalties for misdeclaration in bills of entry fall under Section 114AA, which had already been imposed and paid by the appellant.