Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2013 (10) TMI 121

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ter considering the amount already deposited as sufficient deposit for the purpose of hearing the appeal. CHA had failed to discharge the obligatory duty as set out in the sub-regulation (b) of Regulation 20 of CHALR - They have rendered themselves liable for penal action in terms of section 112 (a) and section 117 of Customs Act. No malafide had been reflected upon on the part of the appellant - However, it was fact that the licence was required for importation of the goods and these goods were restricted under import and export policy - Even if there was no malafide, the goods were liable for confiscation and imposition of penalty, if no licence was produced or non permission from the DGFT - Similarly, CHA can also not get exonerati .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ued to the import Shed in the examination order that the subject goods be cleared only against a WPC licence/certificate to be produced by the importer at the time of examination. The goods were examined on 26.03.2011 by the import shed officer in the presence of representative of CHA and found them to be as per declaration. However, it was noticed that a WPC (Wireless Protocol Certificate) licence was required for import of these goods in terms of DGFT Notification No.53/2009-14 dated 15.7.2010. The importer however could not produce the required WPC licence during the course of examination/clearance. As against this they vide their letters dated 25.2.2011 and 8.3.2011 sought permission for storage of goods under section 49 of Customs Act, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... me for re-export on payment of redemption fine of Rs.15 lakhs under section 125 and imposed penalty of Rs.15 lakh under section 112(a) on the importer and a penalty of Rs.2 lakh imposed on the CHA under section 112 (a) and 117 of Customs Act, 1962. 6. Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that they have already deposited an amount of Rs.22,04,750/- towards customs duty and prayed that this amount may be considered as sufficient pre-deposit and they should be allowed to clear the goods for re-export. 7. After going through the facts and circumstances of the case, and after hearing both the sides, I find that the Commissioner has rightly confiscated the goods as the importer could not produce WPC licence or any permission from .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... appellant that they have not produced WPC licence nor permission from the DGFT to re-export these goods. 10. As regard imposition of penalty, it is seen that the goods for importation under consideration requires a licence and for failure of production of licence, the importer is liable to penalty under section 112(a). 11. Regarding adequacy of the penalty, it is observed that as per submission of the ld. Advocate that they have imported the equipment which were restricted goods. The fact of restricted goods was fully known to the appellant. The goods were imported without proper licence. Thus these are rightly confiscated and the importer is liable for imposition of redemption fine and penalty. Issue relating to redemption fine is alr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ice of Customs department in terms of sub-regulation (d) of Regulation 13 of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004 (CHALR), in the absence of any such documentary evidence, it is clear that the CHA have not exercised due diligence with regard to the correctness of the information in terms of sub-regulation (e) of Regulation 13 of CHALR is concerned, it is clear that CHA has also failed to discharge obligatory duty as set out in terms of sub-regulation (b) of Regulation 20 of CHALR, therefore they are liable to penalty action in terms of section 112(a) and section 117 of Customs Act, 1962. 13. From the above, it is observed that CHA has failed to discharge the obligatory duty as set out in the sub-regulation (b) of Regulatio .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates