Case Law Details
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.
3. Facts are not in dispute. It is the case of the Revenue that the importer had availed the benefit of exemption which was not available to the importer and therefore, in the Show Cause Notice (dated 09.05.2017) issued to the importer and two Customs House Agents, it is alleged that the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 69/2011-Cus. dated 29.07.2011, Notification No. 46/2011-Cus. dated 01.06.2011 and Notification No. 12/2012-Cus. dated 17.03.2013 dated was not available to the importer and hence, the CHAs were alleged to be liable for penalty under Section 112 ibid. for failing to comply with Regulations 13(d) and (e) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations (‘CBLR’ for short). In the Show Cause Notice, it was also inter alia proposed for the appropriation of the amount paid voluntarily towards the differential duty and interest.
4. The appellant appears to have filed a detailed reply against the allegations levelled against it, but however, not satisfied with the same, the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai-I has proceeded to pass the impugned Order-in-Original No. 202/2018-19 dated 24.12.2018, wherein he has inter alia confirmed the proposed imposition of penalty under Section 112(a) ibid. on Mr. K. Bhaskar of M/s. Maruvur Arasi Logistics P. Ltd.
5.1 It is the case of the appellant, as argued by its Advocate, that the only allegation against the appellant was failure on its part to comply with Regulations 13(d) and (e) of the CBLR, for which the CBLR itself, which is a self-contained code, provides for penal provisions also for any violations under the CBLR.
5.2 It was further contended that the Revenue having appropriated the duty along with interest, there was no scope to term the import as improper and that hence, Section 112 is not at all attracted.
5.3 It was also contended by the Learned Advocate for the appellant that in the whole of the Show Cause Notice, there is absolutely no allegation as to the specific role of the appellant, to fasten the penalty under Section 112 ibid. on the appellant.
5.4 Learned Advocate for the appellant would also rely on various judgements/orders in support.
6. Per contra, Learned Assistant Commissioner supported the findings of the lower authorities.
7. I have considered the rival contentions, have gone through the documents placed on record and also the judgements/orders relied on during the course of arguments.
8. The allegation levelled against this appellant 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.
9. Accordingly, it is held that the penalty levied is not in accordance with law and consequently, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
(Order pronounced in the open court on 20.05.2022)
