Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Geeta Vijay Logistics vs Commissioner Of Customs-Mumbai - ... on 24 January, 2023
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE
TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI
REGIONAL BENCH
Customs Appeal No. 85930 of 2022
(Arising out of Order-in-Original CAO No. 147/CAC/PCC(G)/SJ/CBS Adj dated
28.03.2022 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs (General),
Mumbai-I)
M/s. Geeta Vijay Logistics Appellant
138, Agrawal Trade Centre,
Plot No.62, Sector 11, CBD Belapur,
Navi Mumbai 400 614.
Vs.
Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai Respondent
New Custom House, Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400 001.
Appearance:
Shri N.D. George, Advocate, for the Appellant Shri S.K. Hatangadi, Assistant Commissioner, Authorised Representative for the Respondent CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. SANJIV SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) HON'BLE DR. SUVENDU KUMAR PATI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Date of Hearing: 24.01.2023 Date of Decision: 24.01.2023 FINAL ORDER NO. A/85153/2023 PER: SANJIV SRIVASTAVA This appeal is directed against Order-in-Original CAO No. 147/CAC/PCC(G)/SJ/CBS Adj dated 28.03.2022 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai-I. By the impugned order, Principal Commissioner has held as follows:-
"ORDER "I, Principal Commissioner of Customs (General), in exercise of the power conferred upon me under Regulation 17(7) of the CBLR, 2018, pass the following order:
(i) I hereby impose penalty of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) on M/s. Geeta Vijay Logistics, CB No. 11/2391 [PAN No. AWIPS1442CCH001) under Regulation 18 of the CBLR, 2018.
2 C/85930/2022
(ii) I hereby order for forfeiture of entire amount of security deposit furnished by the CB, under Regulation 14 of the CBLR, 2018.
(iii) The CB License No.11/2391 is ordered to be revoked under Regulation 14 of the CBLR, 2018.
(iv) 1 hereby order that the CB surrender the original License as well as all the 'F', 'G' & 'H' cards issued there under immediately This order is passed without prejudice to any other action which may be taken against the Customs Broker and their employees under the Customs Act, 1962, or any other act for the time being in force in the Union of India."
2.1 Appellant is a Customs broker.
2.2 An intelligence was gathered that one M/s. Bansi Enterprises (IEC No. BSZPB3689J) had imported amino acid for agricultural use for which Bill of Entry No. 7428890 was filed through the appellant misdeclaring description, quantity and value with the intention to circumvent the applicability of mandatory registration required for the import of these goods from the Central Insecticides Board, under Section 9 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 and to evade customs duty leviable thereon.
2.3 It was also gathered that the goods have been misdeclared and the actual goods concealed from prohibited goods under the Schedule of Insecticides Act.
2.4 After investigations were undertaken, a show cause notice dated 30.12.2020 was issued to the importer and others involved. Joint Commissioner in his order dated 24.02.2021 observed as follows:-
"40. Insofar as the 2nd charge against the CB is concerned, I find that the present case is one where an adjudication of a Show Cause Notice under the Customs Act, 1962 is being decided. Therefore, the charge that the Custom Broker has not followed the obligations stipulated under
3 C/85930/2022 Regulation 10 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 cannot be dealt by me in these proceedings. Therefore, this part of the charge levelled against them in the impugned Show Cause Notice is not maintainable and has to be dropped in these proceedings under the Customs Act, 1962 for want of jurisdiction. However, a copy of this Order in Original is being endorsed to the Hon'ble Principal Commissioner of Customs (Gen), 2nd Floor, New Custom House, Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400 001 for taking appropriate action under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018."
He refrained from imposing any penalty under the Customs Act on the appellant.
2.5 Taking note of the observation made in the order-in- original, a show cause notice dated 15.07.2021 was issued to the appellant asking them to show cause as to why the licence bearing No.11/2391 issued to them should not be revoked and security deposited should not be forfeited and/or penalty should not be imposed under Regulation 14 read with 17 & 18 of the CBLR, 2018 for their failure to comply with the provisions of Regulation 10(d), (e) & (m) of the CBLR, 2018.
2.6 After conducting enquiry proceedings, the show cause notice has been adjudicated by the Principal Commissioner as per the impugned order referred in para 1 above.
2.7 Aggrieved appellant has filed this appeal.
3.1 We have heard Shri N.D. George, Advocate for the appellant and Shri S.K. Hatangadi, Assistant Commissioner, Authorised Representative for the Revenue.
3.2 Arguing for the appellant, learned counsel submits that:-
The case against the importer was with regard to the importation of certain goods which were concealed along with the declared goods. The case thus was illegal importation of certain goods which was never in their knowledge.
4 C/85930/2022 The Joint Commissioner while adjudicating the show cause notice in which the appellant was also made a party, has clearly observed that they had no role to play in the illegal importation of the goods and they have acted on the basis of the authority letter issued to them by the importer. As the appellant was acting on the authority letter, the charge was contravention of Regulation 10(d), (e) & (m) of the CBLR, 2018 cannot be upheld.
He would rely upon the Advisory No.01/2022 dated 29.12.2022 issued by the office of Principal Chief Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, whereby the officers have been advised not to invoke the violation of the provisions of CBLR, 2018 and make the Customs brokers co-noticees in cases involving interpretative disputes regarding classification, availment of the benefit of exemption notification and valuation.
He would rely upon the following decisions:-
o Mehul & Co. [2022 (5) TMI 30 - Bombay High Court] o S.K. Logistics [2016 (331) ELT 486 (Tri.-Del)] o Jaiswal Import Cargo Services Ltd. [2019 (370) ELT 1366 (Tri.-Del.)] o United Safeway India Pvt. Ltd. [2019 (369) ELT 1563 (Tri.-Bang.)] o Moriks Shipping & Trading (P) Ltd. [2015 (317) ELT 3 (Mad.)] o Akanksha Enterprises [2006 (203) ELT 125 (Tri.-Del.)] o GM Enterprises [2010 (262) ELT 796 (Tri.-Mumbai)] o Prime Forwarders [2008 (222) ELT 137 (Tri.-Ahmd.)] 3.3 Learned AR while reiterating the findings recorded in the impugned order, would rely upon the following decisions in his support:-
o Rizvi Shipping Agency [2019-TIOL-1439-HC-MUM-CUS] o H.B. Cargo Services [2011 (268) ELT 448 (AP)] o Dhakane & Co. [2015 (317) 56 (Tri.-Mumbai)] 4.1 We have considered the impugned order along with the submissions made in appeal and during the course of arguments.
5 C/85930/2022 4.2 For upholding against the appellant, the impugned order observes as follows:-
"23.8 I now examine the charges in the Charge Notice sequentially. It has been alleged that CB did not exercise due diligence in discharging their obligation as required under Regulation 10(d), 10(e), and 10(m)of the CBLR, 2018.
23.9 In respect of Regulation 10(d) of CBLR 2018 it has been alleged that a Customs Broker shall advise his client to comply with the provisions of the Act, other allied Acts and the rules and regulations thereof, and in case of non- compliance, shall bring the matter to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be. As per the statement of Shri Gyaneshwari V Singh, Branch Manager of Customs Broker Firm M/s. Geeta Vijay Logistics (CB No. 11/2391)recorded on 03.10.2019 under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, admitted that he had filed the Bill of Entry No. 7428890 dated 11.04.2020 for clearance for home consumption on behalf of M/s. Bansi Enterprises as per the documents provided by Shri Sumit Sharma. He further admitted that he knew Shri Vishal HanubhaiShiyaliya as the proprietor of firm M/s. Bansi Enterprises, however, he has never met Shri Vishal HanubhaiShiyaliya; that Shri Sumit Sharma gave him bill of lading, invoice and packing list for filing the subject Bill of entry and all the papers were sent through courier. Shri Vishal HanubhaiShiyaliya, proprietor of M/s. Bansi Enterprises, in his statement recorded on 17.07.2020, under Section 108 of Customs Act, 1962, admitted that Shri Sumit Sharma managed all import activities and trading of goods mainly consisting of various kinds of fertilizers and he only signed the documents wherever Shri Sumit Sharma said. Shri Vishal HanubhaiShiyaliya further admitted that he was not aware about Emamectin Benzoate' being present in both the consignments imported vide Bill of Entry No. 7428890 dated 11.04.2020 and IGM No. 2251839 dated 17.04.2020 stuffed in Container No. KMTU 7463047 as Shri Sumit Sharma used to placed the order for the consignment from the foreign supplier and also tie up with the Customs Brokers M/s Geeta Vijay Logistics for customs clearance of the goods, imported in the name of M/s. Bansi -Enterprises. It 6 C/85930/2022 is already on record that there was no interaction between the Customs Broker and the IEC holder of the importing firm M/s Bansi Enterprises so that the Customs Broker could give proper advice. It is crystal clear evident that the CB was hand in glove with the proxy importer viz. Shri Sumit Sharma and facilitated the improper importation of the goods. Having perused the findings of the Inquiry Officer, I am of the considered opinion that the findings of the inquiry officer are based on the available evidence, facts and circumstances of the case. I agree with the findings of the Inquiry Officer with respect to violation of Regulation 10(d) of the CBLR, 2018. Thus, the CB have violated the provisions of Regulation 10(d) of CBLR, 2018, which proves the contravention of provisions of Regulation 10(d) of the CBLR, 2018.
23.10 In respect of Regulation 10(e) of CBLR 2018 it has been alleged in the Show Cause Notice that the CB did not exercise due diligence to ascertain the correctness of any information which he imparts to a client with reference to any work related to clearance of cargo or baggage. I find that the CB has failed to exercise due diligence as they had undertaken the customs clearance of the said import consignments of M/s. Bansi Enterprises from Shri Sumit Sharma, i.e. other than the importer and that the CB didn't meet IEC holder of M/s. Bansi Enterprises personally. From the statement dated 03.10.2019 of Shri Gyaneshwari V Singh, Branch Manager of Customs Broker Firm M/s. Geeta Vijay Logistics (CB No. 11/2391) and statement dated 17.07.2020 of Shri Vishal HanubhaiShiyaliya, proprietor of M/s. Bansi Enterprises, it emerges that the CB had filed Bills of Entry in the name of M/s. Bansi Enterprises, without verifying the genuineness and credentials of the actual importer. In the instant case, the documents were passed through an intermediary and handed over to the CB, who accepted the same, in utter negligence and total disregard of the obligations cast on them. It is proven that the CB's gross failure to engage with the true IEC holder has enabled unscrupulous elements in facilitating the improper importation of the goods. It appears that the CB was actively involved in improper importation of the goods in contravention to the provisions of the Customs Act 1962, read with Section 9 and 17 of the Insecticides Act, 1968.
7 C/85930/2022 Hence, I hold that the CB failed to fulfill the obligation of Regulation 10(e) of CBLR, 2018.
23.11 In respect of Regulation 10(m) of CBLR 2018 it has been alleged in the Show Cause Notice that the CB has not discharged his duties as a Customs Broker with utmost speed and efficiency and without any delay I find that failure to comply with regulation 10(m) of CBLR, 2018 is clearly established from the statement dated 03.10.2019 of Shri Gyaneshwari V Singh, Branch Manager of Customs Broker Firm M/s Geeta Vijay Logistics (CB No. 11/2391) and statement dated 17.07.2020 of Shri Vishal HanubhaiShiyaliya, proprietor of M/s Bansi Enterprises, it emerges that the CB had filed Bills of Entry in the name of M/s Bansi Enterprises, without verifying the genuineness and credentials of the actual importer. It is evident that the CB was actively involved in improper importation of the goods in contravention to the provisions of Customs Act, 1962, read with Section 9 and 17 of the Insecticides Act, 1968. These commissions and omissions on the part of the CB firm prove grave inefficiency in discharge of their duties as a Customs Broker. Hence, I hold that the CB failed to fulfill the obligation of Regulation 10(m) of CBLR, 2018, as they have failed to discharge their duties as a Customs Broker with utmost speed and efficiency."
4.3 The findings recorded by the Joint Commissioner against the importer and the Customs broker are as follows:-
"37. In so far the penal liability of the Customs Broker, M/s.
Geeta Vijay Logistics (AWIPS1442CCH001) is concerned, the charge is that they abetted the commission of the above offence by way of not declaring the correct description, quantity and value of the impugned goods; that, they had not followed the obligation stipulated under Regulation 10 of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018 and thus they have rendered themselves liable for penal action Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.
In their reply to the Notice they have stated with the help of case laws that all the import documents of the Importer, M/s 8 C/85930/2022 Bansi Enterprises including KYC presented to Customs were given to them by Shri Sumit Sharma who claimed to be authorised representative/ manager of the importer firm and presented the authority letter along with the import documents. They then verified the same and found to be genuine and they then took up the job before filing the Bill of Entry as provided in Rule 11 of the CBLR, 2013. On detection of the case, they ensured presence of Shri Vishal Proprietor of M/s. Bansi Enterprises before the Hanubhai Shiyaliya, Customs officers for investigation and extended full cooperation in the inquiry. They were not aware of foul play or mis-declaration. They contend that the duly signed import documents were handed over by Shri Sumit Sharma to them for customs clearance which amounts to authorising them for handling the cargo for customs clearances. The authorization more than implied and there did not appear a further need to procure any additional authorization to handle the cargo and relied upon the decision in K.S. Sawant & Co., Vs CC(G) (( 2012 (2) ELT 303 (Tri-Mum)). That, in view of the facts and circumstances, none of the provisions of Section 112 are invocable against them and further argued that imposition of penalty on them is otherwise also contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble CESTAT that they cannot be penalized for the misdemeanour on the part of the importer for having filed the B/E as held in (a) D.S. Cargo Service Vs CC (( 2009 (247) ELT. 769 (Tri)), (b) Prime Forwarders v CC (< 2008 (222) EL. T 137 (Tri)) and CC v Moriks Shipping and Trading Pvt. Ltd (( 2008 (227) ELT $77 (Tri)), World Cargo Movers v CC ((2002 (139) ELT
408.)). The CB during the hearing on 09.02.2021 which was attended by Shri Sumit Sharma and Shri Gyaneshwar Singh was such that Shri Gyaneshwar Singh produced the copy of the Authority Letter dated 11.04.2020 issued by the Importer in favour of the Customs broker and which bears the dated signature of Shri Gyaneshwar Singh in token of its acceptance. The said Authority Letter issued under the Regulation was authenticated by both the above Representatives in my presence and Certified it to be True Copy.
38. I have examined the submissions made by the Customs broker along with the case laws cited and perused the Authority Letter dated 11.04.2020. 1 find that the import documents in 9 C/85930/2022 respect of the aforesaid Bill of Entry along with the KYC documents of the importer were handed over by Shri Sumit Sharma to them with the Authorisation as seen from their Statement although there is no confirmation from the Importer or from his Manager during the investigation. Instead, both sides have before me confirmed the existence of this Authority letter and which was mentioned in the said Statement of the CB.
39. From the Authority Letter dated 11.04.2020, 1 find that the job of clearance came to be accepted by the CB only after the Vessel Entry Inwards. I find that the charge of not declaring the correct description, quantity and value of the impugned goods besides not having followed the obligation under the Regulation are the 2 charges. Insofar as the 1st charge is concerned, I find that the Authority Letter dated 11.04.2020 absolves them of the charges that the CB knew that the goods were liable for confiscation. Under such a situation, the Authorisation dated given by the Importer to the Customs broker holds the key to the innocence of the Customs broker Looking at the wordings used in this Authority Letter dated 11.04.2020, 1 extend the benefit of doubt to the CB by accepting the defence put up by the CB under the Customs Act, 1962, that, even if part of the goods were found concealed with Amino Acid where during investigation, it was found that the concealed goods were prohibited goods under Section 2 (33) of the Customs Act, 1962, still having regard to the date when the Authority Letter was issued by the Importer, ie 11.04.2020, it has to be held that the CB was not aware that the goods were liable for confiscation. As a result, I refrain from penal provisions under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 against the CB."
4.4 If the Customs broker had been acting as per the authority letter which was mentioned in the statement of Customs broker as has been accepted by the Joint Commissioner while adjudicating the above case, the charge for contravention of Regulation 10(d), (e) & (m) cannot be sustained. Undisputedly the Joint Commissioner has exonerated the Customs broker of the proceedings initiated under Custom Act on the basis of the said authority letter. These findings have not been challenged by the Revenue before any appellate authority. The findings 10 C/85930/2022 recorded in the impugned order that Customs broker was actively involved in importation of the goods in contravention of the provisions of Customs Act, 1962, read with Section 9 and 17 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 cannot be held to be proper.
4.5 By Advisory dated 29.12.2022, Principal Chief Commissioner of Customs has advised as follows:-
"2. The Officers involved in the Audit and subsequent preparation of Draft SCNS should be given suitable direction/advice not to invoke the violation of provisions of CBLR 2018 and make the CBs co-noticees in cases involving Interpretative disputes regarding classification, availment of the benefit of exemption notifications and valuation. Moreover, the involvement of retrospective interpretative issues in a case should not be made the basis to invoke the violation of provisions of CBLR, 2018.
3. Further, the Officers need to be sensitized about the provisions of Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018 (CBLR.2018) and the implications of invoking the said provisions. As the scope of the audit is limited to scrutinising the averment based on documents submitted to the revenue, the possibility to prove such complicity, involving the violations of the provisions of CBLR, 2018, is unattainable without detailed inquiry.
4. There are numerous judicial pronouncements wherein it has been. inter-alia, held that in cases where there is no evidence of complicity in the illegal importation of goods or wrong intent or prior knowledge about the violation, the penalty cannot be imposed on the Customs Broker."
4.6 The decision in the case of Dhakane & Co. [2015 (317) ELT 56 (Tri.-Mumbai)] relied upon by the Revenue is not applicable to the facts of the present case as in the said decision the authority letter issued by exporter in favour of CHA was fabricated.
4.7 The decision in the case of H.B. Cargo Services [2011 (268) ELT 448 (AP)] also does not support the case of Revenue.
11 C/85930/2022 4.8 In the case of Jaiswal Import Cargo Services Ltd. [2019 (370) ELT 1366 (Tri.-Del.)], Tribunal has observed as follows:-
"13. No doubt, CHA is a link between the Customs Authorities and the importers and the CBLR Regulations imposes obligation upon them which have to be taken as mandatory but law is also settled that not any and every infraction of the CHA Regulations either Regulation 13 or elsewhere leads to the revocation of license rather in line with a proportionality analysis and only grave and serious violation justify revocation. As it was held by this Tribunal in the case of Ashiana Cargo Services v. Commissioner of Customs (I & G) reported in 2014 (302) E.L.T. 161 (Del.), the Tribunal further clarified that revocation of licence under Rule 20(1) can only be justified in the presence of aggravating factors that allow infraction to be labelled grave. It is the presence of mens rea to act fraudulent or an act of corruption due to intentional violation of CBLR Regulations with an intent to evade duty which invites the punishment as that of cancellation of CB Licence. This punishment cannot be proportionate to the mere absence of due diligence. As far as M/s. Jaiswal Import Cargo Services Limited is concerned there is nothing on record to even show the absence of due diligence on their part. Thus, no reason appears to us for the cancellation of appellant's CHA license. The penalty is also opined to be far beyond the proportion. Hence, same is also held liable to be set aside."
4.9 In the case of United Safeway India Pvt. Ltd. [2019 (369) ELT 1563 (Tri.-Bang.)], Tribunal has observed as follows:-
"6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, we find that initially a SCN was issued to the appellant by the Additional Commissioner, Kandla proposing to impose the penalty under Section 114(iii) and 114AA of the Customs Act and thereafter the Commissioner of Customs, Kandla on prime facie conclusion issued order prohibiting the appellant to operate at the Kandla Port as a Customs broker. The Prohibition Order was challenged before the CESTAT at Ahmedabad and the Tribunal vide its Order dated 8- 10-2018 set aside the prohibition order and remanded the 12 C/85930/2022 matter back to the Adjudicating Authority to decide the case afresh after giving them sufficient opportunity of personal hearing. Further, we find that the Commissioner of Customs, Kandla on remand passed the Order-in-Original dated 1-1-2019 and lifted the Prohibition Order dated 1-5-2018 earlier passed and allowed the appellants to operate their business at Customs House, Kandla. While lifting the Prohibition Order, the Commissioner observed that the lifting of the Prohibition Order is subject to further outcome of proceedings initiated by the Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore. Further, we find that, in the meantime, the Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore on the basis of said Prohibition Order issued the SCN to the appellant alleging violation of various Regulations as prescribed in CBLR, 2018 and appointed the Inquiry Officer. We also find that the said Inquiry Officer after conducting of detailed inquiry and examining the documents produced by the appellant as well as the exporter has exonerated the appellant by holding that they have not violated any of the Regulations 11(a), (d), (e), (f) & (n) of CBLR, 2013. The only fault found by the Inquiry Officer against the appellant was lack of supervision towards the work carried out by the person employed by him who was a trainee officer. Further, we find that there is no finding of the Inquiry Officer against the involvement of the appellant in the offence committed by the exporter regarding the overvaluation of the export goods. In view of the finding of the Inquiry Officer, it was not required to pass the impugned order by the Commissioner of Customs. Further, the Commissioner has also violated the principles of natural justice without putting the appellant to notice the reasons for his disagreement with the findings of the Inquiry Officer which according to us is the basic requirement of law. Further, we find that various decisions relied upon by the appellant cited supra, Courts have consistently held that the extreme penalty of revocation should be invoked only when there is a clear involvement of the appellant in mis-declaring the value of the goods in order to avail pecuniary benefits. Therefore by relying upon the ratio of the various decisions cited supra, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order is not sustainable in law and therefore, we set aside the same by allowing the appeal of the appellant."
13 C/85930/2022 4.10 In the case of Moriks Shipping & Trading (P) Ltd. [2015 (317) ELT 3 (Mad.)], Hon'ble Madras High Court observed as follows:-
"6. Even at the very outset, it is evident from the order of the Tribunal that the goods were examined by the Customs Department in its laboratory, and analysis revealed that the goods were common salt instead of Organic Dye Intermediate G- Salt, as declared. Such being the case, this Court is baffled to note how penalty can be levied on the CHA. When the Department itself, only on the basis of the chemical analysis, was able to ascertain that the goods attempted to be exported was not common salt, how can a CHA be expected to know of the exact nature of the product at sight. In the above stated scenario, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal's reasoning for setting aside the penalty imposed on the CHA is fully justified.
7. Further, the case of Satish Gupta (supra) relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant, does not apply to the facts of the present case. That is a case in which there is a clear finding that the CHA had knowledge and was aware of the nature of goods. In the present case, we find that the CHA does not bear knowledge about the nature of goods and there is no material to infer so.
8. In such view of the matter, this Court finds no reason to take a view different from the one taken by the Tribunal and, therefore, this appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the substantial question of law is answered against the Revenue and in favour of the 1st respondent."
4.11 In the case of GM Enterprises [2010 (262) ELT 796 (Tri.- Mumbai), Tribunal has observed as follows:-
"6.3 M/s. Sainath Clearing Agency - I find that CHA has acted in the bona fide belief documents supplied to him for preparing shipping bills and no statement of the CHA was recorded and there is no statement of the exporter that CHA was having any knowledge about misdeclaration of the goods. In that situation, the penalty on the CHA is not leviable. The decision of V. Esakia 14 C/85930/2022 Pillai (supra) is squarely applicable to this case, wherein this Tribunal has held that no evidence is available on record in form of confessional statement or any statement of the exporter or anybody to show that CHA had knowledge and information about the misdeclaration of the goods. Accordingly, the penalty imposed on CHA is waived."
4.12 In the case of Prime Forwarders [2008 (222) ELT 137 (Tri.- Ahmd.)], Tribunal has observed as follows:-
"10. As regards, penalty on M/s. Prime Forwarders, customs house agent, no evidence of their involvement or their knowledge about mis-declaration has been brought on record. The Commissioner has observed that being a responsible CHA, he should have informed the correct description of the goods. However, we find that the said CHA has acted on the basis of the documents given to them and there is nothing to show that he was aware of the containers being stuffed with Ferro Titanium instead of brass scrap. As such we find no justification for imposition of penalty upon the said appellant."
4.13 Nothing has been brought on record to show that contravention of Regulation 10(d), (e) & (m) of the CBLR, 2018 can be established against the appellant. The proceedings initiated against the appellant are also not in line with the Advisory issued by the Principal Chief Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai.
5.1 Accordingly the impugned order cannot be sustained and the same is set aside.
5.2 Appeal is allowed.
(Order pronounced in the open court) (Sanjiv Srivastava) Member (Technical) (Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati) Member (Judicial) tvu