9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 1258X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Nos. 4375735 and 4375733, on examination of the consignments, the officers found there was misdeclaration of the goods. Accordingly, notice was issued to the importer as well as the CHA. On adjudication, the learned adjudicating authority ordered confiscation of the goods. The adjudicating authority also imposed a penalty of Rs. 80,000 on the appellant under section 112(a) of the Customs Act 1962. On appeal, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has reduced this penalty from Rs. 80,000 to Rs. 40,000. Aggrieved against the confirmation of the penalty, the appellant filed this appeal. 3. The appellant submits that the CHA cannot be held responsible for misdeclaration of the items declared in the bills of entry. In this case, the Manager of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the offence. However, separate action has been initiated against him for his role in the commission of the offence. In the present case, the appellant has been imposed penalty under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962. For imposing penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, there must be a positive act or omission on the part of the appellant which should render the goods liable for confiscation. In the present case, I find that the misdeclaration of the goods is mainly due to the offence committed by the importer for which the CHA cannot be held responsible. Accordingly, I find that the vicarious responsibility cannot be cast on the appellant and hence the penalty imposed on the appellant on this ground is not sustainable. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... HA has no way of knowing the violations before hand. We find in the proceedings before the Commissioner, no evidence has been brought out about the prior knowledge of the appellants regarding violation of the provisions of Customs Act. Lack of due diligence and failure to take more precautions cannot, by itself, bring in penal consequences under Section 112(a). For imposition of penalty under Section 112(a), a positive act or omission is to be established. For penalty mala fide act/omission is one of the requirements. In the present case, the appellants, being authorized employees of the CHA, are apparently penalized for their act of abetting such violations by the importer. As already noted, we find that the evidences available in this cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
