Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2017 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (3) TMI 407 - CESTAT CHENNAIImposition of penalty u/s 114 (i) and 114AA of the CA, 1962 - Smuggling - red sanders - The Custom House Agent and Freight Forwarders had also hand in glove with the smuggling racket who were also conscious of the smuggling activity in respect of the offending goods - Held that: - The appellant did not inform the investigating authority about the modus operandi of the racket. Appellant was quite aware that a 20 feet container could conveniently carry logs of large size. Still he kept quite when the declared goods of yarn does not require such a huge and long container. That rules out transport of yarn. Appellant also did not disclose identity of Rajesh Gupta nor cooperated with the investigation to unearth the smuggling racket. Daniel Raj, the appellant was Managing Partner of CHA M/s. Jay Yess Agency. He in his statement dated 2.12.2011 admitted that the document given by T. Mariappan in respect of the attempted export was submitted by him to customs. When he was CHA, he was expected to be aware about the existence of Excise Range IVE. He did not inform the Customs or Excise authorities about forgery and fabrication of documents accompanying the offending goods. He also did not inform about use of false seal used to seal the container. This proved his ulterior motive for personal gain perpetuating the offence of attempt to export red sander - A person acting on the advice of another runs in risk if he does not ascertain veracity of the advice. Doctrine of Caveat Emptor makes the appellant liable under law. Customs law expects a CHA to be trustful to Customs. Non-disclosure of material facts and conspiracy against Customs brings him to the fold of law in view of both oral and documentary evidence came up against appellant. Appellant's conscious knowledge and intimacy to the smuggling surfaced with echoed evidence. Conduct of the appellant showed his hand in glove with the smuggling racket to act to the detriment of Customs. Accordingly, appellant's plea of innocence fails. He deceived Customs. His deception caused peril to the interest of Revenue. Penalty upheld - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
|