Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2008 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (2) TMI 870 - AT - CustomsLevy of penalty u/s 114(iii) of the Customs Act on CHA - offence of misdeclaration of description and value of the goods by the exporter - Commissioner (appeals) deleted the penalty - HELD THAT:- In the present case, even according to the appellant, the CHA’s failure was in the matter of ensuring the correctness of the declarations made in the export documents. The appellant refers to CHA’s obligation under Regulation 13(d) of CHALR, 2004 and states that he has a duty to advise his client to comply with the provisions of the Act or, in the event of non-compliance, to bring the matter to the notice of the Customs authorities. There is no denial of these obligations of a CHA. The exporter filed Shipping Bills for export of what was declared as ‘organic dye intermediate G-salt’ with a claim for drawback on the declared value of over ₹ 64.00 lakhs. The exporter authorized the CHA to file such documents with such declarations, and the CHA did accordingly. Whether the goods presented for export was G-salt or common salt was a fact known to the exporter but not to the CHA. It is a question to be addressed by the Customs authorities through examination of the goods. The same is the position, when it comes to the value of the goods. As rightly held in the case of Akanksha Enterprise [2006 (2) TMI 489 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI], a CHA is not required to go into the authenticity of the declarations made in the export documents. His job is confined to submission of the documents given by the exporter as also to identify the exporter to the Customs authorities. The appellant has no case that the respondents did not discharge these obligations. If they say that the CHA violated Regulation 13(d), let them proceed against the CHA under the CHALR. In the absence of evidence of the CHA having abetted misdeclaration of description or value of the goods, it cannot be held that they are liable to be penalized under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act. The case law cited by learned counsel is to this effect. Learned JDR referred to a Circular of the Board as also to a judgment of the apex court. Both these relate to the conduct of exporters. Neither of these pertains to the conduct of a CHA. The impugned order is sustained and this appeal is dismissed. The Revenue's application for stay of operation of the said order also gets dismissed.
|