9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 560X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osed on the passenger after holding that there was no suppression of facts by the passenger. Once the passenger has not suppressed any material fact then how it can be said that the appellant has abetted the passenger in the commission of certain violation of the Customs Act. In the present case, no proceedings were initiated against the appellant under the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013. Moreover, issuance of show-cause notice in de novo remand proceedings is not permitted under law. The imposition of penalty of ₹ 2,50,000/- on the appellant is not sustainable - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Customs Appeal No. 20031 of 2020 - Final Order No. 20068/2021 - Dated:- 10-3-2021 - MR. S.S GARG, JUDI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es pertained to household articles and personal effects and the remaining 85 packages contained various cosmetic items in commercial quantity. Thereafter, the passenger consented for waiver of the show-cause notice and personal hearing and the Additional Commissioner vide Order-in-Original dated 05/01/2018 held that 54 packages were liable to be classified as baggage under CTH 98030000. The Additional Commissioner also imposed penalties on the passenger as well as on the appellant amounting to ₹ 8,87,691/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Eighty Seven Thousand Six Hundred and Ninety One only) under the provisions of Section 112(a) of the Act. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner against the imposition of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order passed by the Commissioner imposing the penalty of ₹ 2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) on the appellant under Section 112(a) of the Act is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law. He further submitted that the Additional Commissioner has wrongly held that the appellant has failed to exercise due diligence in the instant matter which had resulted in the violation of Regulation 11(d), 11(e) and 11(n) of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013. Learned counsel also took me through the various regulations and submitted that there is nothing on record to suggest that the appellants had in relation to the subject goods, done or omitted to do any act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ord about prior knowledge regarding violation of the provisions of the Customs Act, hence no penalty under Section 112(a) of the Act is imposable on the CHA. In the same case it was held that lack of due diligence and failure to take precautions would not itself bring in penal consequences under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act. He further submitted that the Order-in-Appeal dated 24/09/2018 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) was challenged by the passenger Mrs. Shahin Taj Begum before the CESTAT and the CESTAT vide Final Order No. 20523/2019 dated 04/07/2019 was pleased to reduce the penalties after holding that there was no suppression of facts by the passenger. Learned counsel further submitted that once the Tribunal has hel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
