Customs Act penalty overturned for incorrect declaration of country of origin. Appellant not involved in duty evasion.

The penalty imposed on the appellant, a representative of a Customs House Agent, under Section 112 of the Customs Act for incorrect declaration of the country of origin in import documents was set aside. The appellant contended that they were not involved in the importer's attempt to evade duty as the documents were provided by the importer, and there was no evidence of collusion. Despite discrepancies in the documents, the appellant's lack of intention to evade duty led to the penalty being deemed unsustainable, resulting in the appeal being allowed.

---

---

Issues involved: Imposition of penalty under Section 112 of Customs Act for incorrect declaration of country of origin in import documents.

Summary:
The appellant, a representative of a Customs House Agent (CHA), filed an appeal against a penalty of Rs. Five lakhs imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act for incorrect declaration of the country of origin in import documents. The goods imported were compact fluorescent lamps from Malaysia, but the Revenue alleged they were actually from China and liable for anti-dumping duty. The appellant contended that they were not connected with the importer's attempt to evade duty, as the documents were supplied by the importer and no firm in Malaysia existed as mentioned in the invoice. The Revenue argued that the appellant failed to verify the country of origin and was therefore liable for the penalty.

Upon review, it was found that the import was indeed from M/s. M.G. International, and the documents were provided by the importer. The appellant later supplied the manufacturer's invoice to the Customs authorities, which indicated Malaysia as the country of origin. However, upon verification, it was discovered that the Malaysian firm mentioned in the invoice did not exist. There was no evidence of the appellant's intention to evade duty or collude with the importer in providing false information. Consequently, the penalty imposed on the appellant was deemed unsustainable and set aside, leading to the allowance of the appeal.

---