9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 870X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not been diligent enough to verify antecedents of the exporter and thereby facilitated the fraudulent export and availment of undue draw back. Being a CHA, the appellant has filed shipping bill on behalf of the exporters. Needless to say, that the details of value of the goods are entered in the shipping bill as per the instructions given by the exporter. It is not brought out from evidence that the CHA had in any manner assisted the exporter in over invoicing the goods so as to facilitate the availment of ineligible draw back. The act of not being diligent enough in verifying the antecedents of the exporter would attract the provisions of CBLR, 2018 and it cannot be a ground for imposing penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide order impugned herein reduced the penalty imposed on Shri P.L. Subramanian, Clerk of M/s. Accurate Clearing Shipping Agency to Rs.25,000/-. The penalty imposed on the other appellants were not interfered. Aggrieved by such order, the appellants are now before the tribunal. 3.1 The Ld. Counsel Shri A.K. Jayaraj appeared and argued for the appellants. It is submitted that the only allegation in the Show Cause Notice against these appellants is that as a CHA, the appellant did not exercise due diligence. There is no finding rendered that the appellant has in any way acted in connivance to the attempted export. The value declared in the shipping bill is according to the instructions given to the appellant b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erify the antecedents of exporter and thus facilitated the fraudulent export and misdeclaration of value of export goods. The consignment has been assumed to be overvalued on the basis of the report given by Shri V. Murugan. There is no evidence for over invoicing of earlier consignments. There is no report called for from an expert of textile committee. All these would go to show that there is no basis for imposing penalty on the appellants. It is prayed that the appeals may be allowed. 4. The Ld. Authorised Representative Shri R. Rajaraman appeared for the Department. The findings in the impugned order were reiterated. 5. Heard both sides. 6. The issue that arises for consideration is whether the penalties imposed on the appellants under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... given by such a lay person has been accepted by the Department to conclude that there has been over valuation of goods. In any case, in the absence of the allegation that the CHA, or the employee has actively participated in over valuing the goods to help the exporter make benefit, there cannot be any punitive measures imposed upon them. 10. The act of not being diligent enough in verifying the antecedents of the exporter would attract the provisions of CBLR, 2018 and it cannot be a ground for imposing penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962. In the case of M/s. Mohak Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Customs [Final Order No. A/12637/2023 dated 20.11.2023], the Tribunal held that the penalty imposed alleging that the KYC of the ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
