TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 170X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Authority in reply to Question No.10 that the CHA has filed the Bill of Entry based on the description on the invoice and there is no instruction by the importer to the CHA to do any wrong act. In the absence of any material evidence of knowledge and collusion between the appellant and the importer, it is not appropriate to punish the CHA for filing the document in good faith and on the basis of documents supplied by the importer. All the decisions relied upon by the appellant cited supra has consistently held that in order to impose penalty on the CHA under Section 112 of the Customs Act, there has to be a knowledge on the part of the CHA and there should be a collusion between the CHA and the importer in defrauding the Revenue - reli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd of the appellant was that he relied upon the documents furnished by the importer and filed the Bill of Entry as per the declaration made by the importer in the invoice and he was not aware of any mis-declaration or under-valuation done by the importer. After examining the defense, the Original Authority found him guilty of mis-conduct and collusion with the importer and imposed penalty of ₹ 1 Lakh under Section 112 of the Customs Act. The appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who upheld the penalty on the ground that the CHA cannot absolve themselves from the wrong doings of the importers and that CHA has colluded with the importer to defraud the Revenue. Hence the appellant filed the present appeal. 3. Heard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in support of the culpability of the appellant and has held that CHA is liable for the wrong doing of the importer ignoring the fact that the CHA acted on good faith on the written instructions of the importer. In support of his submission, he relied upon the following decisions: Sai Shipping Services Vs Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi, 2009 (239) ELT 104 (T-Del) Ashok Jaiswar Vs Commissioner of Customs (Adj) Mumbai, 2006 (200) ELT 122 (Tri-Del) Sindhu Cargo Services Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs, Coimbatore, 2008 (226) ELT 282 (Tri-Chennai) Success Engineering Vs Commissioner of Customs, Kandla, 2007 (215) ELT 220 (Tri-Ahm) Prime Forwarders Vs Commissioner of Customs, kandla, 2008 (222) ELT 137 (Tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against the appellant is merely that he signed the shipping bill, upon the business being brought by Shri Md. Farooq. The finding is also that Shri Mohd. Farooq and other persons were the guilty parties in committing the drawback fraud. There is no mention of the appellant being aware that the fraud was being committed. This Tribunal has held in the case of Syndicate Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CC, Chennai [2003 (154) E.L.T. 756 (Tnbunal-Chennai)] that, a customs house agent is not liable to penalty merely for signing a shipping bill in relation to contraband goods. More positive evidence of participation is necessary . 7. In view of the various decisions cited supra and on the basis of material on record, I am of the considered op ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
