TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 552X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -SM - Final Order No. A / 11366 /2018 - Dated:- 9-7-2018 - HON BLE MR. RAMESH NAIR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) For Appellant : Shri S.J.Vyas (Advocate) For Respondent : Shri S.K.Shukla (A.R.) ORDER Per : Ramesh Nair The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is Custom House Agent (CHA) and engaged in the clearance of goods namely, Poppy Seeds imported. The case against the importer is that they have mis-declared of goods which led to evasion of huge amount of Custom Duty. The appellant was imposed penalty of ₹ 1 Lakhs under section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 by the adjudicating authority which was upheld by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), therefore, the present appeal. 2. Shri. S.J. Vyas Ld. Counsel appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10.2017 Sarfaraj Khan S Pathan Vs. CC, Mundra. 2014 (310) ELT 545 (Tri-Del) Prince International Vs. CCE, Noida. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides and perused the records. 5. I find that the appellant is Customs House agent and filed the bills of entry on behalf of the M/s Oswal Agro Foods, Ahmedabad. The case against M/s Oswal Agro Foods is that the goods were grossly mis-declared which led to evasion of Customs duty. As regards, the role of the appellant, I find that the appellant have declared the goods as per the document, therefore, the mis-declaration cannot be alleged against the appellant. From the order in original, I find that this fact has been admitted by the adjudicating autho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the CHALR 2004 in itself is the complete Regulation for proceeding against the CHA for any violation of Regulation. It is also observed that the appellant CHA was tried under CHALR and their license was revoke and security deposit was forfeited. Therefore, there cannot be separate penalty under Customs Act, particularly when adjudicating authority has given finding that the appellant is not party for mis-declaring the goods. This portion of the finding has attainted finality as revenue is not in appeal against such finding. In the judgment cited by the Ld. Counsel identically fact were involved that even though there is a mis-declaration by the importer, the penalty under Customs Act was set aside. As regard, the judgment relied from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
