TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 540X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssion which resulted leading to mis-declaration, therefore, the penalty on the appellant is not imposable. As Revenue has failed to produce any evidence on record that the appellant was in collusion for mis-declaration and description of the goods in question, therefore penalty on the appellant is not imposable. Reliance placed in the case of Commissioner of Custom (Import & General) , New Delhi Versus Buhariwal Logistics & Another [2015 (12) TMI 1149 - DELHI HIGH COURT], where it was held that the appellant has taken due diligence while issuing delivery order, therefore, no penalty can be imposed on the appellant - Admittedly, in this case, it was not in the knowledge of the appellant that they were having knowledge of illegal import ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arbokorn Thailand Co. Ltd. and consigned to M/s Shri Balaji Trading Co., New Delhi. Bill of Entry was not filed till 09.05.2014, the said container was examined by the DRI in the presence of two independent witnesses, representative of the CONCOR and Customs officers resulting in recovery of total of 33,92,000 cigarettes. No one came forward to produce documents in support of legal importation of the cigarettes, the alongwith case seat cushions. For concealing and smuggling of contraband goods the same were placed under the retention under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. Scrutiny of the documents obtained from M/s Sea Marine Shipping Agencies revealed that one Sh. Jagjeet was the IEC holder and Prop. of M/s Shri Balaji Trading Comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and providing only services as sub agent in import, they have many clients for export, that they were not providing any clearance facility to any client; that they were mainly in touch with forwarding agencies for export of consignments. He further submitted that he has submitted related papers to the import consignment of M/s Shri Balaji Trading Co. on 07.05.2014 and further correspondence on 21.05.2014 that these papers i.e. copy of delivery order, copy of bill of lading, surrender letter of shipping line against bill of lading, original bond copy, KYC detail on consignee letter head, consignee s IEC copy, PAN card copy and voter ID card copy, IGM and SMTP copy and shipping line invoice were related to the import consignment imported in q ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the documents from the consignee as per customs guidelines. The adjudicating authority in the impugned order held that M/s Eminence Container Lines had active role in mis-declaration as has been alleged in the show cause notice in order to facilitate the importer to avail undue benefit and to evade payment of duty. Therefore, penalty was imposed under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. But the job of M/s Eminence Container Lines is a pure agent of M/s Alpine Shipping. Therefore, there was no role of the appellant for mis-declaration of the goods. Moreover, the Revenue has not come with any evidence that the appellant were acted or evaded in preparing the false and incorrect Bill of Lading particulars of the goods. As appellant nev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Anoop Mithas, no voter ID or identification of person to whom documents were handed over were obtained therefore, the actual importer of the goods escaped from the customs. Therefore, he is liable to penalised. 6. Heard the parties considered the submissions. 7. On careful consideration and submissions made by both the sides, I find that the sole ground for imposition of penalty on M/s Eminence is that they have given wrong description of the goods in the Bill of Lading. In fact, Bill of Lading has not been issued by the appellant and they were pure agent of M/s Alpine Shipping who has issued the Bill of Lading. As no role has been explained by the authorities below alleging the appellant for the act of omission and commission which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be initiated under those regulations. However, that by itself will not justify the imposition of penalty under Sections 112 and 114AA of the Act unless knowledge of the illegal acts of the agent/ employee is able to be attributed to his employer/ principal . 10. Admittedly, in this case, it was not in the knowledge of the appellant that they were having knowledge of illegal import made by the importer. In that circumstances, relying on the case of Buhariwala Logistics (supra), the penalty on the appellant are not imposable. 11. With these terms penalty is not imposable on the appellants. Consequently, the impugned order for imposing penalties on the appellants is set aside and the appeals are allowed with consequential relief, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
