TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 701X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to show that the present appellants were aware of the fact that the importer does not have the NOC's or the requisite licences are required to be produced before Customs authorities and as such, has abetted the illegal imports - penalty not justified - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - C/41580 and 41581/2016—SM - 42722-40723/2017 - Dated:- 19-5-2017 - Smt. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) For the Appellant: Shri S.S. Sayed Shuhaibb, Adv. For the Respondent: Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy, JC (AR) ORDER Per: Archana Wa dhwa The challenge in the present two appeals is to penalty of ₹ 10,00,000/- imposed upon M/s. The Trading Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (CHA) and penalty of ₹ 5,00,000/- imposed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lants observed that by accepting the request of the importer to use the CHA's name for clearance of imports and by handling bill of entries for clearance of the goods without a valid NOC, the appellants have connived with the importer for illegal clearances. He further observed that by permitting the importer to use the CHA's name, he had violated the provisions of CHALR, 2004. Thus, by their various acts of commissions and omissions, they abetted the importer and as such are liable to penalty under section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. 4. On going through the impugned order of the Commissioner, I find that the main ground for imposition of penalty upon the appellants is that he has committed certain violations under the CHALR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hen.) has held, in identical circumstances, that the CHA cannot be penalized under the Customs Act, in the absence of any positive evidence on record to show any malafide intention on his part or to establish him as an abettor. Mere failure in carrying out duties in accordance with law cannot be held to be a sufficient ground for imposition of penalty upon him. To the Similar effect, is another decision of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Boria Ram and Others Vs. CC, New Delhi reported as 2017 (3) 759 (Cestat-ND). For better appreciation, the relevant portion from the said order is reproduced as under: Having gone through the impugned order, we find that the main reason for the adjudicating authority to impose penalty on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
