9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (4) TMI 592X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ants under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants filed the bill of entry No. 698824 dated 17-2-2006 on behalf of the importer under DFRC Licence No. 031035024 dated 4-10-2005, for clearance of 73 bales containing 18,647 meters Textile Piece goods from China with the declared value of Rs. 3,34,859/-. The Bill of Entry was filed under DFRC Licence No. 031035024 dated 4-10-2005. On specific intelligence gathered by Central Intelligence Unit CIU the goods were offloaded at CFS-Gateway Distripark Ltd. (GDL) and were subjected to first check examination order. Representative sealed sample was forwarded to the Textile Committee, Worli for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the sample was not their employee and the Agency, could not be held accountable for his actions; that the documents were handed over to the importer s agent in good faith and they cannot be responsible for events thereafter; that in the circumstances they cannot be charged with abetment. 4. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) did not agree with the contention of the appellants and held as under : It is observed that the CHA is the authorized person for facilitation of clearance of the goods through the various Customs procedures. The Bill of Entry bears the name of the CHA as a testimony to their being not only the duly authorized agent but also the one responsible for clearance of the goods in the proper manner. By simply maintainin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of sample from the market matching the actual description for replacement with the drawn sample and even sending the replaced sample for test purposes. Merely because the appellants handed over the import documents to the importer s agent in good faith does not mean that they acted with mala fide intention or knowingly abetted in the commission of the offence. There is no finding in the impugned order that the appellants did anything or omitted to do anything, in connivance of, or with the knowledge of the illegal acts of the importer. In such circumstances, vicarious liability cannot be fastened on the appellants. In the absence of any evidence of incriminating conduct against the appellants, the imposition of penalty is not in order. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
