9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1686X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tara Trading Karachi. The importer M/s Archana Traders, New Delhi was requested to clear the goods by filing proper documents and adopting relevant procedures under the Customs Act, 1962. The goods were though arrived on 15.10.2014 and shipped to CFS (Container freight station), however the importer M/s Archana Traders never turned up to lift the cargo nor made any payment towards the goods in question to the supplier/ shipper M/s Sitara Trading, Karachi. Consequently the appellant was contacted by the said shipper from Karachi, Pakistan and requested to re-consign the goods and send the same to Singapore or Colombo, but the appellant refused to do so and communicated to the shipper that they could reship the goods back to Karachi, Pakistan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es below had recorded that the appellant was not in connivance or collusion with shipper or importer in getting the cargo cleared but erroneously held that they are liable for penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, travelling beyond the scope of allegation mentioned in the Notice. Hence, the order is bad in law. In support, he has referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner Vs Reliance Port and Terminals Ltd. - 2016 (334) ELT 630 (Guj.). 5. Ld. AR for the Revenue, on the other hand, submitted that the penalty on the appellant imposed by the adjudicating authority was Rs. 1.00 lakh, and after considering the role/ involvement of the appellant, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) reduced ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rity is required to be reduced. I order accordingly." 7. Even though the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) analyzing the facts and evidences on record has reduced the penalty to Rs. 25,000/- however, the contention of the Ld. Advocate for the appellant is that the allegation in the Show Cause Notice against the appellant proposing penalty was that the appellant had colluded/ connived with the shipper in bringing Arecanut Betelnut Splits to India. Since both the authorities below had categorically recorded a finding that the appellant had neither connived nor colluded with the shipper or the importer in getting the cargo imported, therefore, imposition of penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 is unwarranted. I find force in the con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
