Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Nikhil Shipping Agency vs Commissioner Of Customs (Import) ... on 19 November, 2010
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI
Application No. C/S/1060/2009 In
Appeal No. C/627/2009
(Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 52/2009/CAC/CC(I)/SHH/Gr.III passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Import) 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. Nikhil Shipping Agency :
Appellants VS Commissioner of Customs (Import) Mumbai Respondents Appearance Shri Edna Bhimsen Singh, Partner for Appellants Shri V.K. Singh, SDR Authorized Representative CORAM:
Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Date of decision : 19/11/2010 ORDER NO.
Per : Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) The matter is listed for stay, after hearing at length it was found that the matter can be disposed of at this stage. Accordingly, after waiver of pre-deposit of the penalty amount, the matter is taken up for final disposal.
2. The appellant before me is the CHA and the main party has not come in appeal. The allegation in the matter is against the CHA is that being the Custom House Agent, it is the duty of the appellant to know whereabout the importer on whom behalf he is clearing the goods. In the case, the only defence is taken by the CHA is that they were not aware of whereabout of the importer and therefore they could not produce the importer before the authorities. On this allegation, the penalty has been confirmed against the appellant under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. The appellant appeared personally and submitted that as there licence has already been suspended for more than two years. They have not having any source of income in that circumstances lenient view may be taken against the appellant in the matter.
4. On the other hand, the learned DR relied upon the decision in the case of Sunil Jadhav Vs. Commr. Of Cus. (Imports), Mumbai reported in 2008 (229) ELT 439 (Tri.Bom.) saying that it is the duty of the CHA to now the whereabouts of the person on whose behalf they are dealing with the department.
5. Heard and considered.
6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that it is the duty of the CHA to do work diligently and to represent the honest person before the department. In this case, the appellant has failed to produce the importer on whose behalf he is dealing with the department. In that circumstances, relying on the decision of Sunil Jadhav (supra), the appellant is liable to be penalized for their Act. With regard to the quantum of penalty, considering the financial difficulties raised by the appellant, the penalty is reduced to R. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only).
7. With these observations, the appeal as well as stay application are disposed of in the above manner.
(Dictated in court) (Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial) Sm 3