9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (9) TMI 1028X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndent. ORDER The appellants namely M/s. Ryan Sea Air Agent and M/s. Mehta & Mehta (CHA) have filed these appeals against the imposition of penalties of ₹ 25,000/- each by the lower authority. 2. The facts of the case are that the intelligence gathered by CIU of Air Cargo Complex, Mumbai in January 2003 led to detection of a number of imports made at ACC, Mumbai between September 2002 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... grieved by the imposition of penalties, the appellants are before me. 3. The learned Advocate for the appellants submitted that in this case the penalties have been imposed on the appellants for not declaring full description and for under-valuation of the goods. In fact, the appellants are the CHA and filed bills of entry on the basis of invoice and documents given to them by the importer. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 2004. No penalty is leviable under Sections 112 and 117 of the Customs Act, 1962. 4. On the other hand, the learned DR submitted that in these cases the appellants have filed manual Bills of Entry on false/incorrect grounds and against the existing orders/notices. Moreover, they are duty bound to file the correct details of the goods imported and the correct value which they failed to do s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... documents have been supplied by the importer, the CHA filed Bill of Entry on the basis of those documents. Hence, the CHA cannot be charged for any action under the Customs Act, if at all any action is required to be taken against the CHA that is to be under CHALR, 2004. The case law relied upon by the learned DR is not relevant to this case. In fact the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in Bansal Ind ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
