2017 (11) TMI 303 - AT - Customs

Penalty on CHA and two other employees - involvement of CHA in clandestine import of tin ingots - Held that - against the CHA action was taken under Rule 21 of the CHALR and his license was suspended which he challenged before the CESTAT and CESTAT decided in his favour. Further I also find that there is no substantive material evidence against the CHA as well as two of its employees for their involvement in the whole affairs except to file his Bill of Entry - penalty not warranted and is set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against the order for confiscation of tin metal ingots, brass scrap, and imposition of fines and penalties under the Customs Act.

Analysis:
The appeals were filed against the order dated 30.07.2004, which confiscated 180 bars of tin metal ingots, brass scrap "Honey," and imposed fines and penalties under various sections of the Customs Act. The case involved discrepancies in the declared weight and contents of the imported goods, leading to the discovery of concealed metal ingots in the brass scrap consignment. The metal ingots were seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act, and subsequent investigations implicated various individuals, including the importer, employees of the Custom House Agent (CHA), and others. Statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act pointed towards the involvement of a key individual in the clandestine importation of tin ingots, leading to the issuance of a show cause notice proposing confiscation of goods and penalties.

The appellant argued that the penalties imposed on the CHA and its employees were not sustainable in law. It was contended that the CHA had no direct involvement in the import of goods, except for acting as a CHA for the importer. The appellant's license had been suspended earlier but was subsequently set aside by the CESTAT, indicating innocence. The appellant claimed that no fresh evidence implicating them had been produced, and the penalties were imposed without following principles of natural justice. The counsel for the employees of the CHA argued that the penalties imposed on them lacked basis and violated the principles of natural justice. Reference was made to a previous order by the Tribunal regarding the main importer, where certain directions were given, including setting aside the penalties and directing a re-examination of penal liability.

The AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order, but upon considering the submissions and material on record, the Judicial Member found that there was no substantive evidence against the CHA and its employees regarding their involvement in the affairs beyond filing the Bill of Entry. Given the lack of evidence, the imposition of penalties on the CHA and its employees was deemed unwarranted, leading to the setting aside of the penalties by allowing all three appeals. The operative portion of the order was pronounced in open court on 05/07/2017.