Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Maruvur Arasi Logistics Private Limited Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai)
Appeal Number : Customs Appeal No. 40282 of 2021
Date of Judgement/Order : 20/05/2022
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Maruvur Arasi Logistics Private Limited Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai)

In this case The allegation levelled against this who is a Customs House Agent (CHA) in the Show Cause Notice is clearly the violation of Regulations 13(d) and (e) of the CBLR, no specific act or omission is attributed to this appellant. What is important is the act or omission that leads to the confiscation of improperly imported goods. Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962 deals with confiscation of improperly imported goods, etc. and Section 112 prescribes penalty for improper importation of goods, etc. It becomes clear that both Section 111 and Section 112 are attracted only when the goods are held to be liable for ‘confiscation’ when they are ‘improperly imported goods’. Once the Revenue collects duty along with interest, then there remains nothing ‘improper’ about ‘import’ as the import itself becomes a proper import, in which event both these Sections will have no role, since when there is no improper import, then there remains nothing to confiscate. Moreover, Section 112 ibid. does not contemplate penal action for violations of provisions or regulations under any other law, much less violation under the CBLR; the charge is very specific: the act or omission should result in improper import of goods and consequently, confiscation of such goods, which is not the case of the Revenue here in the case on hand. Though the Learned Advocate urged various grounds, on this score alone, I am of the view that the penalty levied here under Section 112 ibid. on the appellant, that too for violation under the CBLR, on the peculiar facts of the case, cannot be sustained.

FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT CHENNAI ORDER

This appeal is filed by the appellant, who is a Customs House Agent (CHA), against the levy of penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, levied by the Adjudicating Authority.

2. Heard Shri S. Baskaran, Learned Advocate for the appellant and Shri R. Rajaraman, Learned Assistant Commissioner (Authorized Representative) for the Revenue.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031