9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1015X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i Rajesh Kumar Tiwari is an employee of the said CHA company. The present appeals are against imposition of penalties under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962, on them. 2. The brief facts of the case are that M/s. M.M. Trading, Bhiwadi, Thane (Maharashtra) imported a consignment of cosmetics and M/s. R.U. Import and Export Pvt. Ltd. filed bill of entry for clearance of the said cosmetics through ICD Tughlakabad. On examination of the imported consignment, various violations of provisions of Customs Act, 1962 were noticed by the Customs authorities. These are with reference to misdeclaration of description of goods, which are branded cosmetics, misdeclaration of value, packing without MRP marking and IPR regulations, etc. After conclu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appeals. He submitted that the importer situated in Maharashtra has chosen to import the sensitive items through ICD Tughalakabad. The CHA having full knowledge of the provisions of Customs Act have not taken adequate and necessary precautions to avoid such imports in violation of various provisions of Customs Act. The CHA acted through third party and did not discharge his duties diligently in proper way resulting in these violations by the importer. The provisions of Section 112(a) are rightly invoked in the present situation and the Original Authority is correct in his conclusion. 5. We have heard both the sides and perused the appeals records. 6. In paras 31 and 32 of the impugned order, the Original Authority recorded his findings ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions can not, by itself, bring in penal consequences under Section 112 (a). For imposition of penalty under Section 112 (a), a positive act or omission is to be established. For penalty malafide act/omission is one of the requirements. In the present case, the appellants, being authorized employees of the CHA, are apparently penalized for their act of abetting such violations by the importer. As already noted, we find that the evidences available in this case do not indicate to any such illegal act on the part of the CHA. In this connection, we also refer to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Rajan Arora Vs. CC (ICD, TKD), New Delhi - 2017 (352) ELT 37 (Tribunal-Delhi). The Tribunal after referring to the various decisions dealing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
