Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2014 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (4) TMI 381 - AT - CustomsRemoval of warehoused good based on photo copy of the duty paying Bill of Entry - Responsibility of Storage terminal - Defrauding of Customs Duty to the exchequer - Levy of Penalty / Personal Penalty u/s 112 and u/s 117 - Held that:- action of the importers or their employees in paying an amount for which was shown by the individuals who master minded the entire fraud, can at the most be an act of erroneous business diligence, on their part. In my view, such an action is not covered under the provisions of Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act 1962 in as much as the importers or their employees never could have had a doubt that their goods are liable for confiscation, as the said goods were removed on BOE on which there was payment of duty. In any case, importers having discharged the customs duty and the interest thereof on all the goods imported by them, the question of visiting them with penalty does not arise. In the case in hand, the importer cannot be charged with the commission of omission which made the goods liable from confiscation. Penalties imposed on the CHA and the proprietors of CHA, I find that the Adjudicating Authority has specifically recorded that one Shri Malleshwar Rao is the master mind of the entire fraud committed on the Revenue. There is nothing on record which indicates that the CHA or power of attorney holder or the proprietor of CHA were aware the actions of the individuals who committed the fraud. It is on record that Shri Malleshwar Rao committed the fraud for his personal gain. In my view penalty imposed on the appellant who are CHS or Power of Attorney holders or authorised signatories or proprietors does not arise, hence that portion of the order is unsustainable and is being set aside. Storage terminal have not put in place the correct system for clearance of warehouse goods, in as much as they have allowed clearance of warehoused goods based on photo copy of the duty paying Bill of Entry which is not in accordance with the rules and regulations. To that extent the storage terminals have contravened the provisions of the Customs Act 1962 and the Rules made there under. In my view Storage Terminals having not put in place the correct system due to which warehoused goods were cleared on photocopy of B.O.E; have contravened the provisions of customs Act, for which a penalty can be imposed on them under the provisions of Sec 117 of the Customs Act 1962. Invoking the said provisions, I hold that the warehouse storage terminals need to be visited with a penalty of an amount of ₹ 1 lac each under the provisions of Section 117 of Customs Act 1962 and the Rules made there under - Decided partly in favour of appellant.
|