GND Cargo Movers Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi)
CESTAT Delhi held that lending of IEC Code is not an offence under the Customs Act. Accordingly, penalty under section 114AA of the Customs Act imposed for the same is not sustainable and liable to be set aside.
Facts- The appellant as a holder of a customs broker license. A show cause notice dated 20.05.2013 was issued to the appellant alleging violation of regulation 13 (d) and (e) of the Customs House Agents, Licensing Regulations, 2004 for a reason that the appellant accepted the IEC of an import firm mentioned by Ashok Kumar Agarwal knowing fully well that he was not a Director of Trips Communications. The show cause notice also alleges that the appellant abetted and dealt with goods which it knew or had reasons to believe were liable to confiscation under the Customs Act and, therefore, was liable to penalty u/s. 112 and 114AA of the Customs Act.
The Additional Commissioner, by the order dated 18.05.2016, imposed penalty of Rs. 50 lakhs upon the appellant u/s. 112 and section 114AA of the Customs Act. Commissioner (A) dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed.
Conclusion- Held that specific sub-section has to be mentioned and even if section 112(b) of the Customs Act was to be invoked, penalty could be imposed only if the appellant was aware of the offending nature of the goods. In the present case there is nothing on the record to show that the appellant was aware of the nature of the imported goods.
