9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (1) TMI 457X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 'importers') had imported a consignment of components of colour picture tubes from Japan under five invoices and had filed Bill of Entry No. 101056, dated 21-1-98 through the CHA for clearance of the goods. The Bill of Entry was assessed to duty of Rs. 21,58,662/- on the basis of the importers' declaration and the same was paid by the importers on 5-2-98 and the goods were cleared. Subsequently, the importers found certain discrepancy in the Bill of Entry, which was found to have crept into the document from one of the five invoices. That was a discrepancy relating to the value of the goods covered by the said invoice. The importers intimated this error to the CHA and the latter advised the former to intimate the same directly to the Custom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hana for the appellants, submits that the penalty of Rs. 10,000/- has been imposed on the CHA under Section 117 of the Customs Act, even though there was no proposal in the show-cause notice to impose any such penalty. Ld. Counsel has, further, cited the provisions of Section 117 and has submitted that none of the requirements for imposition of a penalty under that section has been held to have been satisfied in the present case. The only finding recorded by the Commissioner against the CHA is that the delayed payment of the differential duty of over Rs. 2,00,000/- was due to the lapse on the part of the CHA. He further submits that no penalty under Section 117 can be sustained in the absence of a finding that the CHA contravened any provis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in support of such proposal. These allegations are contained in Para 9 of the notice. The adjudicating authority has dropped the proposal for confiscation of the goods under Section 111 and for penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act. The above allegations, which stood rejected with the dropping of the proposal for confiscation and penalty, did not survive for any other purpose, let alone a penalty under Section 117. The Commissioner had condoned the CHA's lapse and exonerated them after warning them for the future. Having done so, it was not open to him to proceed against the CHA on the same set of facts and allegations. I further observe that, as rightly submitted by ld. Counsel, there was no proposal in the SCN to impose penalty on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
