Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Customs Agent in Rs Arunachalam vs Cc Chennai Iv-Cc Sea Ch - Iv on 4 March, 2022Matching Fragments
2. Brief facts of the case are that the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Chennai Zonal Unit received specific intelligence that attempts were made to smuggle Red Sanders (prohibited item for export) through Chennai Port vide a consignment covered under Shipping Bill dated 21.08.2017 filed in the name of M/s.A.B. Traders, Chennai. The shipping bill had been filed by Customs House Agent / Customs Broker namely M/s.R.S.Arunachalam. The goods declared were 117 bales of Polyester Lady Lungies, Polyester Saree, Ladies In-Skirt and Ladies Nighty for export to M/s.NP Waja Resources at Malaysia. Pursuant to the intelligence, the containers were intercepted and examined. On opening the container and destuffing the goods, it was found that Red Sander Logs were found stacked up at the end of the container.
"6. The Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004 which is a comprehensive self-contained scheme for licensing, operations, monitoring and regulation, is a standalone provision. Indeed it is a special provision in the Customs Act, 1962 by which, a whole range of activities in connection with which proceedings may be initiated for breach thereof. Implicitly, every agent who has a license has to be connected with import or export of goods and if an agent could be proceeded against under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 merely because of being an agent, it would necessarily follow that every agent must be made a notice in all proceeding under Sections 111 and 113 of Customs Act, 1962 which does not appear to be the intent of the legislation. It is seen from the impugned order that it is the role of the appellant herein as a 'custom house' agent that was found sufficient to invoke the penal provision. As separate provisions exist in the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004, the invoking of such for violations for imposing of penalty under Section 114 of Customs Act, 1962 is patently incorrect."
19. From the records and the own admission of the appellant, it is clear that the appellant had not discharged these obligations, which cast on him. It is a case where under the guise of Coco Peats, prohibited goods namely, Red Sanders weighing 10.760 MTs. has been transported. The DRI based on the intelligence gathered, had rescue the goods and found the Cargo was transported based on the Annexure - A containing the signature of the appellant Customs House Agent. Customs House Agent is governed by the Regulations framed by the Government in exercise of the powers conferred under the Customs Act, 1962. Therefore, misdeclaration of goods and attempt to export such goods is punishable under Section 114 of the Customs Act. A Customs House Agent, who is a party to the mis-declaration, is liable to pay penalty not exceeding three times of the value of the goods mis-declared. The first respondent Tribunal is empowered to enhance the penalty imposed, if the penalty imposed is not adequate. Further, the provisions under the Regulations to punish the Customs House Agent for violation and contravention of the Regulations is in addition to the penal provisions prescribed under the parent act, namely, the Customs Act. It is incorrect to say that the Customs House Agent is liable only under the Regulations for any violation and contravention.
The licence issued to the Customs House Agent under conditions not to commit any grave offence. If action under the Regulations not sufficient for the grave offence, the Customs House Agent is liable also to be proceeded under the Customs Act. There is no legal impediment to proceed against the Customs House Agent under the Customs Act besides action under the Regulations."
23. After appreciating the facts and evidence placed before me, I am of the view that the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Shri Rama Thenna Thayalan (supra) is squarely applicable to the facts of this case. I do not find any merit in the appeals of the appellant. The impugned orders do not call for interference. The same are upheld. The appeals are dismissed.