Case Law Details
R.S. Arunachalam Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai)
These appeals are filed against the orders passed by Commissioner (Appeals) who set aside the order passed by original authority and remanded the matter to reconsider the non-imposition of penalty on the appellants under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962. M/s.R.S. Arunachalam is the Customs Broker firm and Smt. R.A. Vijayalakshmi is a Partner of the same.
It is submitted by revenue, that the appellant, Smt. R.A. Vijayalakshmi has admitted that she has lent digital ID and password of their customs broker firm to M/s. Bro Logistics for filing shipping bill for monthly monetary consideration of Rs.10,000/-. M/s.Bro Logistics were using the digital key of the appellants herein for handling customs clearance of various clients. It is also brought out from evidence that one Shri P. Suresh who was employee of Bro Logistics was doing customs clearance work without having a Customs card. The appellant Smt. R.A. Vijayalakshmi has signed blank annexures and handed over to Bro Logistics for filing before Customs. All these would indicate that the appellants have played a major role in the smuggling activity. By merely pleading ignorance, appellants cannot escape their liability under the Customs Act, 1962. He argued that the order passed by the adjudicating authority is factually and legally incorrect. It is established from the statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act that she has lent digital ID and password to M/s.Bro Logistics. This facilitated in filing the shipping bill. The contention of the Ld. Counsel that these violations would fall only under CBLR, 2013 and not under Customs Act, 1962 cannot be accepted. The Customs Broker Regulations have been framed under the Customs Act, 1962. Further, sub-section (2) of Section 50 states that the exporter has to file a declaration as to the truth of contents along with shipping bill. The appellant who is the customs broker has filed false declaration of the exporter. If the D.R.I. had not intercepted the consignment, the prohibited goods would have been exported out of the country.
The Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of V. Prabhakaran Vs CC Chennai – 2019 (365) ELT 877 (Mad.) wherein it was held that misuse of CHA license by lending it to unscrupulous persons for facilitating smuggling activities has to be viewed seriously. The penalty imposed in that case was upheld by the Hon’ble High Court.
Filing of a Shipping Bill is a major step in export of goods. A shipping bill has to be in the prescribed form. It should contain the details like, name of exporter, consignee, Invoice number, details of packing, description of goods quantity, FOB value etc. The exporter has to submit declaration in the prescribed form along with shipping bill. To complete the customs formalities like filing of shipping bill along with declaration and necessary documents, the exporter usually engages a Customs Broker. The officers of the Customs place much trust on the Customs Brokers. In the present case, as per records, though the Shipping Bill is seen to have been filed by the appellants, they plead ignorance of the entire transaction. The appellants have lent their Customs Broker’s Digital ID and Password to M/s.Bro Logistics for filing the shipping bill. It has also come out from the voluntary statement given by Smt. R.A. Vijayalakshmi that they have lent out their Customs Broker digital ID and password for a monetary consideration of Rs.10,000/- per month.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
