9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 157X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - along with interest and appropriate imposition of penalties. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is a Custom House Agent operating under Licence No.R002/88 issued by the Commissioner of Customs (I&G), New Custom House, New Delhi valid up to 2014. The appellant is a regular CHA of the Importer, the last 8 years and has handled several export and import shipments. The department had also granted ACP status to the Importer on the basis of their clean track record. The appellant filed the Bills of Entry, on the basis of import documents and declarations forwarded by the importer and entered description of the goods as Inkjet Printer as per description mentioned in the import invoices issued by the overseas suppliers M/s Creta Pri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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" He submitted that it is clear from the above that Section 112(a) of the Customs Act includes two categories of persons, who may be liable for fine. The first category of persons is those who, in relation to any goods, do or omit to do any act which renders the goods liable for confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act. The second category of persons comprises of those who abet the doing or omission of such acts. In the present case, penalty has been imposed on the appellant on the allegation that he had abetted the act of misdeclaration, importation of prohibited goods. The Ld. Counsel f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... they filed Bills of Entry No. 3967742/2.7.2011 and 4414865/20.8.2011 on the basis of import documents provided to him and that he had not received/seen any catalogue/literature. Ld. AR contended that being CHA it was their duty to call for literature and ascertain actual classification of the impugned goods but they did not call for the same. He has also stated that the clearance under Bill of Entry no. 2409364 dated 8.12.2010 was also attended by them. That clearance was under tariff item 8433990 i.e., on payment of basic customs duty @ 7.5%.Ld. AR submitted that the appellant are regular CHA of M/s Kajaria Ceramics Ltd. for the last 8 years. In the instant case, the said Bill of entry was filed by them in a routine course on the basis of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CHA was not only responsible towards client i.e. importer/exporter but is also required to diligently assist the Customs department, whereas the appellant had failed. Hence, the above acts of omission and commissions of the appellant have resulted in abetment leading to mis-classification of the impugned goods. These deliberate acts on the part of the appellant have rendered the goods liable to confiscation and themselves to penalty. They have also rendered themselves liable to penal action under Custom House Agent Licencing Rules, 2004. 5. Heard the ld. Counsel for the appellant and ld. AR for the Department and perused the case records. 6. The issue before us is whether penalty is liable to be imposed on the appellant, the Customs Brok ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant. 8. We take support of the Tribunal's decision in the case of M/s. BhanjeeJevathKhona VS The Commissioner of Customs[ 2024 (4) TMI 45 - CESTAT BANGALORE] held as follows: "9. In view of the above, 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 and Company (supra), since the appellant has not been penalized under the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, for any irregularity, the questio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... considered opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the imposition of penalty of Rs. 2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) on the appellant is not sustainable in law and therefore I set aside the same by allowing the appeal of the appellant. 10. We note that 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. We also note that for the said offence, the importer has already been penalized by imposition of redemption fine and penalty. 11. Consequently, we set-aside the impugned order, and allow the appeal. (Order pronounced in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
