9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 65X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the CHA is not supposed to look into details of genuineness of the importer when IEC is produced by the importer. It is seen that documents required as per the KYC are basically issued by government authorities and agencies and the presumption is that the details like name, address etc shown there in are true. The department has not alleged that these documents submitted by the appellant were fake. Nor is there any concrete allegation of connivance with the exporter. This being so, it is found that there was no concrete proof of a blame worthy conduct by the appellant to impose penalties or for any other action as per the Act or Rules to merit a remand. Penalties should not be imposed merely because a legal provision provides for it. It is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passing the order had refrained from imposing penalty on S. Jayachandran, General Manager of M/s. Triway Forwarders Pvt. Ltd. under section 114 and 1114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 on the ground that he had not done any act of omission or commission which made the goods liable for confiscation, relying upon the judgment passed in the case of Commissioner of Customs Vs. I. Sahaya Edin Prabhu reported in 2015 (320) ELT 264 (Mad.). Department after reviewing the order passed by the adjudicating authority filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), who after hearing the parties upheld the adjudication order and dismissed the appeal filed by the department. Hence the department is before this Tribunal. 3. Cross-objections have been filed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed false or incorrect documents, declaration or statement knowingly and intentionally whereas no such case has been made out by the Revenue. She relied on the following case laws to support her contention:- a. Extrusion Vs. Collector of Customs reported in 1994 (70) ELT 52 (Cal.) b. Akbar Badruddin Jiwani Vs. Collector of Customs reported in 1990 (47) ELT 161 (SC) c. Global Star Logistics Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin - 2019 (370) ELT 675 (Tri. Chennai) d. Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin Vs. Sri Durga Shipping Services - 2019 (370) ELT 832 (Tri. Chennai) e. Villavarayar & Co. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin - 2018 (359) ELT 117 (Tri. Chennai) 7. I have heard both sides and perused the records. I find that the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation of connivance with the exporter. This being so, I find that there was no concrete proof of a blame worthy conduct by the appellant to impose penalties or for any other action as per the Act or Rules to merit a remand. Penalties should not be imposed merely because a legal provision provides for it. It is a discretion of the authority to be exercised judicially and in consideration of all the relevant circumstances, bound by the rules of reason and law. Such action cannot be taken on assumptions and presumptions devoid of concrete facts showing wrongdoing. 8. Based on the discussions above I find that the appeal fails and the impugned order merits to be upheld. I order accordingly. The cross objections filed by the appellant is also d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
