Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Jeena & Company vs Commissioner Of Customs (Acc), Mumbai on 22 October, 2009
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI APPEAL NO. C/608/08 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 27/2008 Misc ACC (REFUND) dated 17.3.2008 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Airport, Mumbai. For approval and signature: Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) ============================================================
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 : Yes
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes
authorities?
============================================================= M/s. Jeena & Company :
Appellants VS Commissioner of Customs (ACC), Mumbai.
Respondents Appearance Shri Shushant Murthy, Advocate for Appellants Shri S.M. Vaidya, JDR Authorized Representative CORAM: Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Date of decision : 22/10/2009 ORDER NO Per : Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
This appeal is filed by the CHA challenging the imposition of penalty of Rs.1 lakh under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962. The facts of the case are that the appellant, a CHA filed shipping bill for export of five consignment. Pending some queries, the let export order was not given. However, it was later revealed that the goods have been shipped out of India without permission of the proper officer and the goods were called back. The airlines accepted their moral responsibility for the lapse. However, the appellants claimed that they were in possession of the relevant documents, and the goods were carted by the airline without their knowledge and consent. A penalty was imposed on the CHA for not mentioning the net weight of the consignment as the CHA was responsible to mention the same which was confirmed by the lower appellate authority. Aggrieved by the same appellant before me.
2. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned goods were not in their custody and they have been shipped out without their permission and knowledge and the shipping bill and LEO was not obtained during pending some query. He further prayed that CHA was penalized without any fault of such an excessive penalty. As there is no duty involved in the said consignment. He further prayed that the penalty be waived against the CHA.
3. Heard.
4. On careful examination of the submission made by the learned Counsel and perusal of the record, I find that the CHA was penalized on the ground of mis-declaration of the net weight of the consignment, which amounts to contravention of the Customs laws and on such contravention the penalty was imposable. The only question is left of the quantum of the penalty, I find that the penalty imposed on the CHA is excessive for which the appellant is entitled for some relief and considering the nature of contravention, I reduce the penalty to 40,000/-.
5. With these observations, the appeal is partly allowed (Pronounced in court) (Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial) Sm 3