Register to get Live Demo
2023 (7) TMI 390 - CESTAT KOLKATA
Levy of penalty on Custom House agent and its partner u/s 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 - aiding and abetting the importer in the importation of three consignments of misdeclared goods including shoes, alkaline batteries and wooden strips/beads - HELD THAT:- From the findings of the adjudicating authority, it is observed that the CHA partnership firm and its Partner, both have been penalized for the alleged offence committed.
The Tribunal Order in KRISHNA SHIPPING AGENCY [2016 (9) TMI 1120 - CESTAT KOLKATA] while setting aside the order revocating their license of the CHA has categorically held that they have not violated any of the provisions of Regulation 13, of CHALR, 2004 - thus the penalty cannot be imposed on the CHA Firm as well as its Partner under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.
It is a settled proposition of law that once a partnership is penalized, its partners cannot be penalized separately for the same offence - the penalty imposed on the Appellant 2 is not sustainable and liable to be set aside.
The Gujarat High Court in the case of PRAVIN N. SHAH VERSUS CESTAT [2012 (7) TMI 850 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT], wherein it clearly states that once a Firm is penalized, separate penalty not imposable on the partner.
The penalties imposed on the CHA Firm as well as its Partner Vivek Banka, under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, not sustainable - Appeal allowed.