9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 589X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icit transaction by the importer during the course of import of cargo vide bill of entry No. 7346736 dated 10/07/2012 of M/s Friends & Company. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are M/s Ranabir Enterprises, a licensed CHA, located in Calcutta have their branch operations in Delhi also. They were using the services of appellant No. 2 (Shri Rajan Arora) to transact business with the customs. The transaction of documents with the customs is through one Form- G holder working under the supervision of Shri Rajan Arora, in New Delhi. The impugned bill of entry was filed by M/s Ranabir Enterprises acting as CHA. Later on an investigation conducted by the customs officers with reference to consignment covered by the said bill of entry, revealed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e relied on decisions of Tribunal in his support. 3. The learned AR reiterated the findings in the impugned order. The appellants cannot escape the liability when they had filed the clearance documents with the customs. The declaration in the bill of entry is not correct with reference to actual cargo. The contravention in the import will necessarily bring the liability of the appellant for penalty. 4. Having heard both the sides and upon perusal of the appeal records, I note that the impugned order imposed penalties on these two appellants under the provisions of Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The said section provides for imposition of penalty on any person who abets the doing or omission, of any act or omission, which will r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uments in support of KYC norms cannot be considered as abetment of an act or omission by the importer, attracting penal consequences under Customs Act. Reference can be made to various decisions of the Tribunal. In New Amar Goods Carriers vs. CC, News Delhi reported in 2012 (276) E.L.T. 389 (Tri. - Del.) it was held that in the absence of evidence regarding knowledge of appellant about the contents of the cargo, penalty cannot be imposed. In Electronik Lab vs. CC (P), Mumbai reported in 2005 (187) E.L.T. 362 (Tri. - Mumbai), Joseph Itteyara vs. CC, Mumbai reported in 2004 (176) E.L.T. 165 (Tri. - Mumbai) and Calcutta Ahmedabad Carriers vs. CC, New Delhi reported in 2004 (164) E.L.T. 367 (Tri. - Del.) it is held that penalty on abettor canno ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
