Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Lohia Travels & Cargo vs C.C.- New Delhi (Prev) on 14 July, 2015
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
WEST BLOCK NO.II, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI-110066.
Single Member Bench
Date of Hearing: 01/7/2015
Date of Pronouncement: 14/07/2015
Appeal No.C/53596/2014
(Arising out Order-in-Appeal No. CC(A)CUS/898/2013 issued under Appl/DLH/Cus/D-II/Prev./522/13/2597 dated 29.4.2014 passed by Commissioner of Customs (Appeal), New Custom House, New Delhi).
1.
Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2.
Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3.
Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order?
4.
Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities?
M/s Lohia Travels & Cargo Appellant
Vs.
C.C.- New Delhi (prev) Respondent
Appearance:
Present for the Appellant: Ms. Vibha Narang, Advocate Present for the Respondent: Shri Ranjan Khanna, DR Coram: Honble Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) FINAL ORDER NO. 52195/2015 Per: Sulekha Beevi C.S. The appellants are aggrieved by the imposition of penalty under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the impugned consignment was imported through the appellant CHA, by M/s Aditya Exports, New Delhi declaring the goods as Rubber Washers & Rubber Gaskets. One Shri Mansab Chaudhary, G-card holder of another CHA firm viz, M/s All World Movers Logistics Pvt. Ltd approached the appellant CHA for import of the same. The import documents were submitted through the said Mansab Chaudhary. Later on examination it was found that the goods were sex toys etc. which were prohibited. On investigation it was brought to light that the actual importer was one Mr. Sachin Ramesh Mudaliar, who has given statement under Section 108 admitting the same. The primary adjudicating authority imposed a penalty of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) upon the appellant holding that the appellant CHA was involved in clearing of prohibited goods. On appeal filed, the Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the penalty to Rs.10,000/-. Aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal.
3. The learned DR vehemently argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) has taken a lenient view and that there are no ground to set aside the imposition of penalty. Against this, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that the appellant had no prior knowledge of the issue related to the imports and as to the nature of the goods imported vis-`-vis the Bill of Entry. On perusal of the impugned order the Commissioner (Appeals) as held in Para 7 as under:
The limited role of the CHA was merely to act upon the import documents. As per the arguments, appearing in the original Order, the CHA only has failed to cross check the existence of the importer, and never interacted with the importer in any way and this omission has been admitted by the CHA. Had he interacted, he would have been aware of the vital details and would not have become unknowingly party to fraudulent import. It is not a case that the appellant had wrong intent. It is also not a case that the appellant worked as an accomplice. There is no such evidence.
4. When there is no evidence to establish that the appellant had prior knowledge of the goods imported and also when there is no evidence to establish any wrongful intent on the part of the appellant then there is no reason to impose penalty. After finding that the appellant has become unknowingly party to fraudulent import, the imposition of penalty is unjustified.
5. From the foregoing, the impugned order is set aside. The appeal is allowed with consequential relief if any.
(Pronounced on 14/07/2015) (Sulekha Beevi C.S.) Member (Judicial) K. Gupta 3