9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (6) TMI 828X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A challenges the penalty (Rs. 20,000/-) imposed on him under Section 112 of the Customs Act by the Commissioner of Customs. His client, who imported certain goods and appointed him as CHA, was found to have misdeclared the description and value of the goods in the relevant bill of entry. It appears, the importer approached the Settlement Commission in relation to the proposals made against them in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in defence of the Commissioner's order. 3. After giving careful consideration to the submissions, I have found valid reason to set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant. This penalty was imposed on him under Section 112(a) and (b) of the Customs Act on the ground that he shared vicarious penal liability with his principal (importer). The ld. Commissioner also chose to apply Section 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... annot frame a case of misdeclaration (or abetment thereof) against the CHA so as to penalise him though such case can be made out against his client (importer). In other words, CHA's case would not come within the parameters of Section 147 of the Customs Act. Had it been the intention of the legislature to include CHAs also in the category of agents mentioned in the text of Section 147, there woul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
