TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 1007X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in a given case exists can hardly be the subject matter of due diligence expected of a Customs House Agent unless there are factors which ought to have alerted him/her to make a further inquiry. In other words, in the absence of any indication that the Customs House Agent concerned was complicit in the facts of a particular case, it cannot ordinarily be held liable. However, in the present case, in view of the statement given by the Appellant under Section 108 of the Customs Act, which has not been retracted till date, this Court is of the view that the Appellant has admitted his lapse in not verifying essential facts - Keeping in view the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that the end of justice would be met if a penalty equivalen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ill of Entry had been filed) and found that it contained fire crackers. The container had been lying at the Inland Container Depot, Tughlakabad, New Delhi for almost two months. On visiting the address given in the Importer Exporter Code (IEC) of the importer, M/s Planet Overseas, it was discovered that the premises did not exist at the given address. 4. Since the Appellant in February 2012 had handled a different consignment of the same importer, M/s Planet Overseas, covered under Bill of Entry No. 6078993 dated 23rd February, 2012, which was released upon ten percent examination, officers searched Appellant s premises but did not find any incriminating document or material with respect to the offending goods. However, they enquir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he instant case, the appellant has not submitted any documents to clear the container in question. It is the submission of the ld. Counsel that he does not know that Shri Karandeep Singh, who is the proprietor of M/s Planet Overseas and he never met with him. The documents for the earlier consignment were received by Mr. Surender, who had received the documents from Mr. Ravish Kumar. For clearance of the present container, the appellant was not involved. When it is so, the levy of the penalty is looking on the higher side. By keeping in the mind the doctrine of equality, justice and good conscious, we modify the impugned order and restrict the penalty of ₹ 15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen lakhs only). Thus, the appellant will get partial r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r. Singh, also draws this Court s attention to the statement made by the Appellant under Section 108 of the Customs Act dated 27th March, 2012. The relevant portion of the said statement reads as under:- Que 8: did you make any queries about the shipment from Mr. Surinder? Ans : Yes. He told me that the consignment has been given to him by one of his friend, Sh. Ravish who is known to him for the last 7 years and there is no problem with the shipment. Que 9: Did you verify the credentials of the party you were dealing for the first time in terms of the CHA obligations under the Customs Act, 1962. Ans : No, I did not do carry out any physical verification as Surinder is known to me fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nue officer who is empowered to investigate and enquire into the veracity of documents. As to whether in reality, such an exporter in a given case exists can hardly be the subject matter of due diligence expected of a Customs House Agent unless there are factors which ought to have alerted him/her to make a further inquiry. In other words, in the absence of any indication that the Customs House Agent concerned was complicit in the facts of a particular case, it cannot ordinarily be held liable. (See: Commissioner of Customs versus Shiva Khurana in CUSAA No. 45/2017 dated 14th January, 2019 ) 13. However, in the present case, in view of the statement given by the Appellant under Section 108 of the Customs Act, which has not bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
