Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Chakreshwari Shipping Agency ... vs Commissioner Of Customs(Acc & Export), ... on 29 October, 2013
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI
COURT NO.1
C/S/94521/13-Mum & APPEAL NO.C/86393/13-Mum
(Arising out of Order-in- Appeal No.537,538,539,540/Mumbai-III/2012 dtd.21.12.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai )
For approval and signature:
Honble Mr S.S.Kang, Vice President
Honble Mr.P.K.Jain, Member(Technical)
============================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No
the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should 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 : seen
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes
authorities?
============================================================= M/s. Chakreshwari Shipping Agency Pvt.Ltd.
:
Appellants VS Commissioner of Customs(ACC & Export), Mumbai Respondent Appearance Shri H.O.Tiwari, Advocate for Appellants Shri M.S.Reddy, Dy. Commissioner(A.R.) for Respondent CORAM:
Mr. S. S. Kang, Vice President Mr.P.K.Jain, Member(Technical) Date of hearing: 29/10 /2013 Date of decision 29/10/2013 ORDER NO.
Per : S.S.Kang The applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. 25,000/- imposed under Sec.112 of the Customs Act. The applicant is a CHA and filed Bill of Entry. The adjudicating authority loaded the value to the extent of 20%. The importer paid appropriate duty on the enhanced value. The adjudicating authority upheld the enhancement and imposed penalty on the importer as well as on the present applicant.
2. The contention of the applicant is that there is no evidence on record to show that the applicant had done anything contrary to the provisions of the Customs Act to make him liable for penalty. The applicant also submitted that for the same action the Commissioner of Customs ordered forfeiture of security deposit of Rs. 5,000/- vide order dated 13.3.2013 under the CHALR, 2004. The order of forfeiture of security is set aside by the Tribunal in Appeal No.C/87450/13. Therefore, imposition of penalty under Customs Act is not sustainable.
3. Revenue reiterated the findings of the lower authorities and submitted that the appellant had not advised the importer properly while declaring the value of the imported consignments. Therefore, penalty is rightly imposed.
4. We have gone through the adjudication order and Order-in-Appeal. We find that the adjudicating authority held that the CHA had not advised the importer properly. We find that in the present case, the appellant filed Bill of Entry on the basis of document supplied by the importer. The assessable value of the imported goods has been loaded on account of adding the air freight. The freight charges were paid by the foreign supplier. The appellant alongwith Bill of Entry filed the airway bill also. Ass appellant by C.H.A.filed all the documents supplied by the importer, in these circumstances and in view of order passed by Tribunal setting aside the forfeiture of security amount, we find that imposition of penalty on the present appellant is not sustainable. Therefore, the penalty imposed on the present appellant is set aside.
5. The appeal as well as the stay application are allowed.
(Dictated in court) P.K.Jain Member(Technical) S. S. Kang Vice President pv 3