Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2024 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (2) TMI 444 - CESTAT MUMBAIImposition of detriment / penalty u/s 114 of Customs Act, 1962 - customs broker - alleged mis-declaration of description and value in exports of M/s Pearl Enterprises intended for Malaysia - HELD THAT:- Nothing has been brought on record to indicate that the appellant was concerned with any aspect of procurement prior to entering of goods for export to be cognizant of the fabric used or the purchase value. It is only owing to absence of any defence on the part of the exporter that the facts came to be unchallengeable qua the appellant also. It is to be noted that the appellant did admit to export documents having been received through an unconnected person. While that, of itself, may not lead to the conclusion of being aware of the fabric used or the value of purchase, it, nevertheless, should have been sufficient cause for caution as to satisfy himself about the veracity of the declarations being made. The role of the appellant in filing the declarations in the shipping bill, and responsibility thereof, is not in dispute. Consequently, recourse to section 114 of Customs Act, 1962 is not inappropriate. The fastening of penalty was on account of confiscation solely in the absence of defence. Moreover, there is no finding that the goods were not entitled to some drawback. There is also no finding on the mis-declaration of the earlier consignments which have been referred to as justification for magnitude of penalty. The gap between domestic value and declared value is not necessarily of such difference as to be beyond a commercial transaction, even if it to be outlier. The penalty imposed, therefore, appears to be unduly harsh and disproportionate. The ends of justice will be met by reducing the penalty to ₹10,000 - Appeal allowed in part.
|