9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Imposition of penalty on a Customs House Agent (CHA) for discrepancies in goods described in the shipping bill.
Summary: The appeal was against the penalty imposed on the appellant, a CHA, for discrepancies in goods described in the shipping bill. The appellant prepared the bill for exporting Dun peas, but upon examination, it was found that most bags contained Chana Dal instead. The Additional Commissioner confiscated the Chana Dal and imposed penalties on various parties, including the appellant. Arguments by the Appellant: The appellant, represented by Shri A.K. Jayaraj, argued that he had no knowledge of the contents of the bags and should not be penalized under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962. He contended that he followed standard procedures as a CHA and had no role in the substitution of goods. Citing legal precedents, he emphasized the lack of intention or mens rea on his part to facilitate the export of non-conforming goods. Arguments by the Department Representative: On the other hand, Shri S. Murugan, the Department Representative, asserted that the appellant, as a CHA, was obligated to verify the contents of the bags before export. He argued that the large quantity of non-conforming goods could not have gone unnoticed by the appellant, indicating connivance. Tribunal's Decision: After considering both sides, the Tribunal noted that the appellant had no prior knowledge of the discrepancies in the goods. There was no evidence implicating the appellant in the illegal export scheme. As such, the Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant, giving him the benefit of the doubt due to the lack of conclusive evidence. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
|
