9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (1) TMI 456X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led in the name of M/s. DLWT, by the Customs House Agents viz. M/s. Hindustan Cargo Ltd. It claimed the benefit of Customs Notification No. 20/99 vide S. No. 197 read with list 14. The first item mentioned in list 14 was capacitors (excluding paper capacitors and power capacitors) . S. No. 197 of the Notification granted exemption from payment of basic Customs duty on these goods in excess of 15% as against tariff rate of 40%. Upon examination, however, the goods were found to be power capacitors and, on this basis, they were assessed to duty and this duty was paid by the CHA. Subsequently, a show cause notice was issued by the department to the appellants viz. M/s. DLWT (C/162/2000) and M/s. Hindustan Cargo Ltd. (C/117/2000). This notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... handle the import. Such authorisation was given by the supplier. Hence no liability can be fixed on M/s. DLWT on account of anything done by the CHA. This is the case of M/s. DLWT before us and the same has been reiterated by their Counsel. The CHA, in their appeal, challenges imposition of penalty on them. Their case is that, even according to the finding of the Commissioner, they had entertained a doubt as to the applicability of Notification No. 20/99-Cus. to the subject import. According to learned Counsel for the CHA, this finding of the Commissioner cannot be extended to holding that the CHA had conducted themselves with mala fides in the matter of clearance of the goods. 3. Learned SDR, on the other hand, argues in support of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the import documents. There is no apparent contradiction between the statements. The Product Manager of the CHA, in his statement, made it clear that Shri Durai of M/s. DLWT had instructed them to file bill of entry for clearance of the capacitors supplied by the Dutch company. Accordingly, the bill of entry was filed citing M/s. DLWT as importers. It appears from the statement of Shri C.G. Rajaraman, General Manager of the CHA-company that M/s. DLWT were kept informed of the cargo arrival and Customs proceedings. The assessment of the goods was made against M/s. DLWT and the duty so assessed was paid in their name. The out-of-Customs charge order was also issued to M/s. DLWT and accordingly the goods were cleared in their name. Such clea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the appellants were not liable to be penalised under Section 114A of the Customs Act. 5. As rightly pointed out by learned Counsel for the CHA, they had entertained a genuine doubt regarding the eligibility of the capacitors for the benefit of Notification No. 20/99-Cus. ibid as found by Commissioner himself. The impugned order also indicates that the CHA had shared this doubt with the importers viz. M/s. DLWT. Having regard to such findings, we observe that it was not open to the Commissioner to hold the CHA liable under Section 112 of the Customs Act. This provision of law would be applicable only where the person sought to be penalised thereunder is found to have, by his omissions or commissions, rendered any imported goods liable f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
