9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 797X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le in law. This Tribunal decision in case of Aspinwall & Co. (2001 (4) TMI 144 - CEGAT, CHENNAI) affirmed by Hon’ble Apex Court also makes the position very clear. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence, linking the CHA firm or its employee to the fraudulent transaction undertaken by the exporter, and consequent imposition of penalty would not arise at all. As retards the role of Shri Manohar S. Anchan, it is evident that his role was limited to introducing the exporter to the CHA. In the statement recorded under Section 108, he has clearly stated that he has not seen the goods and, therefore, he was not aware of the nature of the goods under export. In these circumstances, no mala fide can be attributed to Shri Manohar S. Anchan as to h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tracted and consequently he is liable for the penal consequence in respect of the fraudulent exports attempted to be made by M/s. Fashion Variation. The charge against the appellant is that he obtained the documents for the export from Shri Manohar S. Anchan and not directly from the exporter and therefore, there was gross negligence on his part in accepting the export clearance work. 3. The learned Counsel submits that a similar matter came before the Tribunal in case of Aspinwall Co. v. CCE, Trichy - 2001 (132) E.L.T. 644 (Tri.-Chennai) and this Tribunal held that CHA cannot be held responsible for short levy of duty on the ground of having filed Bill of Entry on behalf of the importer under Section 147 of the Customs Act, 1962 and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unt establishing the identity of the exporter. In these circumstances, invoking the provisions of Section 147 and deeming the CHA and his employee as agent of the exporter is clearly unsustainable in law. This Tribunal decision in case of Aspinwall Co. (supra) affirmed by Hon ble Apex Court also makes the position very clear. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence, linking the CHA firm or its employee to the fraudulent transaction undertaken by the exporter, and consequent imposition of penalty would not arise at all. As retards the role of Shri Manohar S. Anchan, it is evident that his role was limited to introducing the exporter to the CHA. In the statement recorded under Section 108, he has clearly stated that he has not seen the go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
