Case Law Details
Rama Thenna Thayalan Vs Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Madras High Court)
Conclusion: Since the provisions under the Regulations to punish the Customs House Agent for violation and contravention of the Regulations was in addition to the penal provisions prescribed under the parent act, namely, the Customs Act, therefore, mis-declaration of goods and attempt to export such goods by assessee-customs house agent was punishable under Section 114 of the Customs Act.
Held: In the instant case, assessee had challenged the order of the CESTAT allowing the appeal of the Department for enhancement of penalty and thereby, enhancing the penalty from Rs.3,00,000/- to Rs.5,00,000/-. It contended that time and again the Courts had held that the Customs House Agent could not be held liable for mis-declaration or misuse of the licence, if any third party without knowledge of the Customs House Agent, exports prohibited goods by mis- declaration. It was held that from the records and the own admission of assessee, it was clear that assessee had not discharged these obligations, which cast on him. It was a case where under the guise of Coco Peats, prohibited goods namely, Red Sanders weighing 10.760 MTs. had been transported. The DRI based on the intelligence gathered, had rescued the goods and found the Cargo was transported based on the Annexure – A containing the signature of assessee Customs House Agent. Customs House Agent was governed by the Regulations framed by the Government in exercise of the powers conferred under the Customs Act, 1962. Therefore, mis-declaration of goods and attempt to export such goods was punishable under Section 114 of the Customs Act. A Customs House Agent, who was a party to the mis-declaration, was liable to pay penalty not exceeding three times of the value of the goods mis-declared. The first respondent Tribunal was empowered to enhance the penalty imposed, if the penalty imposed was not adequate. Further, the provisions under the Regulations to punish the Customs House Agent for violation and contravention of the Regulations was in addition to the penal provisions prescribed under the parent act, namely, the Customs Act. It was incorrect to say that the assessee – Customs House Agent was 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 was liable also to be proceeded under the Customs Act. There was no legal impediment to proceed against the Customs House Agent under the Customs Act besides action under the Regulations. Therefore, there could be no excessive exercise of power in imposing penalty of Rs.5,00,000/-.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
These two appeals are arising out of the common order dated 24.01.2014, viz., one dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant herein against the imposition of penalty of Rs.3,00,000/- and another against the order of the CESTAT allowing the appeal of the Department for enhancement of penalty and thereby, enhancing the penalty from Rs.3,00,000/- to Rs.5,00,000/-.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
