9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 300X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 08.09.2005 passed by Commissioner of Customs, Kolkata. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that one M/s AGM Overseas Exports, i.e. the importer, had imported a total of 10 (ten) consignments of mulberry raw silk . Out of the said 10 consignments, the present Appellant being Customs House Agent, had cleared only two consignments. On investigation, it was revealed that the Advance Licence facility had been allowed to the manufacturer exporter, whereas the importer, M/s AGM Overseas Exports even though a merchant exporter representing themselves as manufacturer exporter, tampered with import licence and accordingly, the goods were cleared by furnishing 25% Bank Guarantee, instead of 100% Bank Guarantee, as applicable to the merc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pliance with the Customs formalities. It is his submission that though the statement of Shri S. L. Sharma, was recorded by the Department, no further investigation was carried out. He fairly accepts that the Appellant had not filed any reply to the show-cause notice rebutting charges labeled on him. He submits that on similar circumstances, this Tribunal in the case of P. C. Chakraborty Vs. Commr. of Customs (Port), Kolkata reported in 2011 (263) ELT 462 (Tri.-Kolkata) , dropped the penalty against CHA. 4. The ld. A. R. appearing for the Revenue, reiterates the findings of the ld.Commissioner (Appeals). He could not place any judgement contrary to the decision of Tribunal in P. C. Chakraborty's case (cited supra). However, he fairly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o evidence that the Appellants had any knowledge regarding tampering of the Import Licence before presenting to the Customs Authorities or the intention of the importer regarding diversion of the goods, hence not liable for duty. 4. Contention of the Revenue is that during investigation, summons were issued to the importer, which were received back with the postal remarks -'left'. It is also submitted that as per the Appellants, Shri Sharma who handed over the Import Licence to the Appellants, had denied this fact in his statement before the Customs Officers. The contention of the Revenue is that the goods were imported without payment of duty and in terms of Notification No. 31/97-Cus., the importer had furnished a bank guarante ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t mean that the importer was a non-existent firm. The omission pointed out by the Revenue for evasion of the duty, will not make the Appellants liable for imposition of penalties under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act. In these circumstances the imposition of penalties on the appellants are not substantiated. Accordingly, the impugned Order is set aside in respect of the present Appellants and the Appeals are allowed. Both sides agree that the facts in that case are similar to the present case. In the result, following the aforesaid decision, the present appeal also deserves to be allowed. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside to the extent of imposition of penalty on the Appellant. Appeal is allowed to that extent, with conseq ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
