Penalty on customs house agent set aside where identical mis-declaration allegations had already failed on the same facts

A customs house agent cannot be penalised for aiding and abetting alleged mis-declaration where the same facts and imported goods had already been examined and the underlying mis-declaration allegation was not established in the connected proceeding. On identical factual allegations, the earlier finding that the importer had not committed mis-declaration removed the basis for attributing evasion assistance to the CHA. The suspension of the CHA licence under the licensing regulations was not considered because it was outside the appeal. The penalty was therefore held unsustainable and set aside, with consequential relief following.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty imposed on the customs house agent for alleged aiding and abetting in the importer's mis-declaration could be sustained when the identical allegations on the same set of facts had already resulted in deletion of penalty in the connected matter.

Analysis: The allegations in the present case were found to be common to those examined earlier in the connected proceeding concerning the same imported goods and the same notification benefit. The Tribunal noted that the earlier decision had already held, on appreciation of the same factual matrix, that the importer could not be treated as having committed mis-declaration so as to found an allegation that the customs house agent had aided and abetted evasion. Following that reasoning, the Tribunal held that the penal action against the customs house agent could not survive on the same facts. The question relating to suspension of the CHA licence under the licensing regulations was left out of consideration as it was not part of the appeal.

Conclusion: The penalty on the appellant was unsustainable and was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the impugned penal order was annulled with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the allegations and facts are identical, a penalty for aiding and abetting cannot be sustained against the customs house agent if the underlying mis-declaration allegation on the same goods has not been established.

---