TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 272X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dure laid down in CHALR, and did not obtain authorization, for which he was punishable - appellant CHA not involved in the fraudulent availment of drawback by the exporting firm and deserve some leniency – penalty amount reduced – decided partly in favor of appellant. - C/87448/13 - A/89202/16/SMB - Dated:- 10-8-2016 - Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) Shri. Anil Balani, Advocate for the Appellants Shri. V.R. Reddy, Asstt. Commissioner(A.R.) for the Respondent ORDER This appeal is filed against impugned order passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) whereby Commissioner(Appeals) upheld the penalty of ₹ 1 lac imposed on the appellant under Section 114(iii) of Customs Act, 1962. 2. The fact of the case is that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uments were admittedly signed by the exporter that itself is deemed authorization. If at all any lapse, it is of very technical nature without any intention or involvement in the offence of fraudulent availment of drawback. He submits that appellant CHA cannot know what is the content of the packages. He generally acts only on the basis of documents, therefore if at all there is any mis-declaration, the appellant is nowhere connected to that. Therefore for mis-declaration on the part of the exporter, CHA cannot be held responsible. He placed reliance on the following judgments: (a) Trinity Forwarders Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai[2005(192) ELT 407(Tri. Chennai)] (b) Palak Laser Video Club Vs. Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mishra has mediated for customs clearance with CHA, therefore the CHA is guilty inasmuch as he has not followed the regulations provided under CHALR as authorization was not obtained from the exporting firm. Therefore, though mensrea or malafide is not established against CHA appellant, but non observance of CHA regulations led to attempt of fraudulent availment of drawback by the exporting firm. I therefore find that the CHA firm has violated the regulations therefore they cannot be exonerated from the penalty imposed on the penalty. However, taking into consideration the facts that appellant CHA is not involved in the fraudulent availment of drawback by the exporting firm. I am of the view that appellant deserve some leniency, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
