9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 45X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ine and penalty on the enhanced value. In addition, penalty under Section 112(a) on the firm was also upheld. There is nothing on record as evidence to prove the involvement of the appellant directly or indirectly that he had connived with the importer. It also intimated that no action was initiated against the appellant under the Customs Broker Regulations till date and therefore, the appellants claim that in good faith he had filed the documents as per the importers directions cannot be ignored. As there is nothing on record to prove that the appellant had connived/abetted with the importers in filing the documents for importing the restricted products without the mandatory documents, the penalty cannot be sustained. The impugned orders for the said offence have already penalized the importers in terms of redemption fine and penalty. As held by the Tribunal in the case of G. NARAYAN CO. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS MANGALORE [ 2021 (3) TMI 560 - CESTAT BANGALORE] , since the appellant has not been penalized under the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, for any irregularity, the question of imposing penalty under Section 112a of the Customs Act, 1962 does not arise. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. Secretary in the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology to Jt. Secretary (Customs), CBEC. The schedule attached to the CRO order specifies various goods which are required to take compulsory registration. While we find that printers and photocopiers find place in 13 the schedule, the MFD does not find place in the said order. In this connection, the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana in the order cited by the appellant has examined the same issue and has concluded that the item MFD was not notified under the CRO and as such, it is not open to the Customs authorities to blindly apply the directives of Department of Electronics and Information Technology through the letter dt. 16/12/2016 to the appellant's goods. In view of the above, we are of the view that the appellants cannot be held to have violated the provisions of the Compulsory Registration Order. 6.3. Having concluded that the imported goods are liable for confiscation but ordering absolute confiscation is not justified, we are left with the task of deciding what would be the appropriate redemption fine and penalty to be imposed on the importers. In the earlier decision of this Bench, the is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Printers (MFDs) were restricted goods and hence, liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act 1962, and allowed the goods to be redeemed on payment of redemption fine and penalty on the enhanced value. In addition, penalty under Section 112(a) on the firm was also upheld. 5. The present appeals are with regard to the involvement of the appellant (Customs Broker) in importing the above said items which were considered to be restricted, which attracted penal provision under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. Section 112(a) reads as: SECTION 112. Penalty for improper importation of goods, etc.- Any person, - (a) who, in relation to any goods, does or omits to do any act which act or omission would render such goods liable to confiscation under Section 111, or abets the doing or omission of such an act, or (b) who acquires possession of or is in any way concerned in carrying, removing, depositing, harbouring, keeping, concealing, selling or purchasing, or in any other manner dealing with any goods which he knows or has reason to believe are liable to confiscation under Section 111. shall be liable, - (i) in the case of goods in respect of which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was initiated against the appellant under the Customs Broker Regulations till date and therefore, the appellants claim that in good faith he had filed the documents as per the importers' directions cannot be ignored. 7. In the case of Commissioner of Customs (Sea port - import), Chennai Vs. City Office Equipment (supra), the Hon'ble High Court in an identical case held that: "10. The Commissioners of different regions, namely, Kolkata, Mumbai, Delhi and Chennai are exercising their discretions inconsistently. Mumbai and Kolkata Commissioners are releasing the goods on deposit of customs duty and also on payment of fine under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 in the identical facts, wherein the old and used digital multifunction devices with standard accessories and attachments are imported without authorisation. On the other hand, the Commissioner, Chennai is taking a contrary stand. Thus the inconsistent views while exercising discretion have led to indiscretion at the hands of the Commissioners, resulting in divergent orders being passed. It is well settled that exercise of discretion dehors proper guidelines may create sometimes discrimination and arbitrariness. As a sequ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
