TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 180X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny knowledge about the attempt to export the contraband items. In such circumstances, the penalty imposed u/s 114 (i) of the Customs Act, 1962 is not justified. Violation of provisions of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations - The proceedings having been initiated under CBLR Regulations for revoking the license and the license having already been revoked, I am of the view that the penalty imposed u/s 114 (i) of the Customs Act, 1962 is not legal and proper, and harsh on the appellant. Penalty imposed on the appellant - The penalty of Rs.50,000/- has been imposed by the Department on Shri S. Murugaram. Since it is clearly brought out that Sri S. Murugaram had no knowledge that contraband items were concealed in the cartons, I find that the penalty of Rs.50,000/- imposed on him is liable to be set aside. Thus, the impugned order to the extent of imposing penalty on the appellant viz. G.Seenivasan and Rs.50,000/- on the appellant viz. S. Murugaram u/s 114 (i) of the Customs Act, 1962 is to be set aside. The appeals are allowed with consequential relief, if any. - MS. SULEKHA BEEVI.C.S., MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri Gokulraj. L, Advocate, for the Appellant (Sl.No.1) Ms. Mercy. J, Advocate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evealed that Sri V. Radhakrishnan had handed over the cartons to S. Murugaram who had filed the documents for export of consignment. Sri Murugaram had used the blank signed documents handed over by Sri G. Seenivasan for use in emergencies. Show cause notices were issued to all the appellants proposing to impose penalties alleging abetment of export of prohibited goods. After due process of law, the original authority imposed penalty of Rs.1 lakh on Sri G. Seenivasan under Section 114 (i) of Customs Act, 1962 and also imposed penalty of Rs.50,000/- on Sri S. Murugaram under Section 114 (i) of Customs Act, 1962. Aggrieved by such order, the appellants are now before the Tribunal. 4. The Ld. Counsel Sri L. Gokulraj appeared and argued for the appellant viz. G. Seenivasan. It is submitted that the appellant had been issued license as a Customs Broker for operating in Chennai. The license was valid upto 2015. Appellant had no knowledge about the contrabands in the cartons and had absolutely no knowledge about the incident unless and until the customs officers proceeded for taking steps. 5. Ld. Counsel adverted to the findings recorded in para-83 of the impugned order. It is pointed out ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tri.-Ahmd.) (iv) Sarosh Nagarwala Vs CC (Export), Nhava Sheva 2017 (358) ELT 542 (Tri.-Mumbai) 9. Ld. A.R Shri Harendra Singh Pal appeared and argued for the Department. The findings by the adjudicating authority in para-81 were adverted to by the Ld. A.R to submit that it was brought out from investigation that the appellant, G. Seenivasan, had violated the obligations as required under Customs Regulations as he has not verified the details of the actual exporter firm M/s.A.M. Exporters. So also, the appellant accepted the documents related to the exports in the name of M/s.A.M. Exporters, which were signed by Shri V. Radhakrishnan, without any authorization. The appellants have therefore abetted in the export of prohibited goods and penalties imposed require no interference. 10. Heard both sides. 11. The facts narrated above bring out that there was an attempt to export contraband items concealed in cartons containing pomegranate fruits. The master mind behind the incident is Shri V. Radhakrishnan who had handed over the cartons to Sri S. Murugaram. Shri V. Radhakrishnan had made Sri Murugaram believe that he is the owner of M/s.A.M. Exporters. He had signed the documents on beha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al anything about his knowledge about the concealment of the prohibited drugs. However, the fact remains that, if the CHA/CB had exercised proper due diligence, at least the identity of the persons behind entire operation would have been clearly known. As seen, in the instant case, the suppliers of the contrabands are not yet identified. (emphasis supplied) 13. From the above, it can be seen that the investigation has not brought out that appellant Sri G. Seenivasan had any knowledge about the attempt to export the contraband items. In such circumstances, the penalty imposed under Section 114 (i) of the Customs Act, 1962 is not justified. 14. The Ld. A.R has argued that there is violation of provisions of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations by the appellant G. Seenivasan. The Department had initiated proceedings under the regulations and the license has already been revoked. The appellant has been out of business till today. The proceedings having been initiated under CBLR Regulations for revoking the license and the license having already been revoked, I am of the view that the penalty imposed under Section 114 (i) of the Customs Act, 1962 is not legal and proper, and harsh on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
