2007 (2) TMI 16 - AT - Customs

Customs Agent Penalty Upheld Despite Exportation: Compliance Key to Avoid Penalties

NATHAN CARGO SERVICES Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, TRICHY

The Appellate Tribunal upheld the penalty of Rs.25,000/- imposed on the Customs House Agent (CHA) by the Commissioner under Section 114 of the Customs ... Confiscation and penalty – Alleged that good of the appellant liable for confiscation under Section 113 and exporter and CHA Liable for penalty under section 114 – After considering the fact allegation find right and the demand of penalty sustained Issues:1. Challenge to penalty imposed on Customs House Agent under Section 114 of the Customs Act.Analysis:The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, CHENNAI was brought by a Customs House Agent (CHA) contesting a penalty of Rs.25,000/- imposed on them by the Commissioner under Section 114 of the Customs Act. The dispute arose from a situation where confusion emerged regarding the goods covered under a shipping bill filed by the CHA on behalf of an exporter and the goods covered under a stuffing certificate issued later. The Commissioner found discrepancies in the dates related to the examination and stuffing of the goods, leading to the conclusion that the goods covered under the shipping bill did not match those actually admitted into the port. Subsequently, the goods were destuffed without proper Customs supervision, resulting in the imposition of penalties on both the exporter and the CHA, along with the rejection of the exporter's drawback claim.The main argument presented by the CHA in the appeal was that since the goods had already been exported, they should not be liable for confiscation, and consequently, no penalty should be imposed. However, the Tribunal clarified that even if goods have been physically exported, they can still be subject to confiscation under Section 113 of the Customs Act. The liability for confiscation does not cease with the export of goods. Additionally, the Tribunal noted significant discrepancies between the statements of the CHA and the exporter, with the exporter seemingly accepting the Commissioner's decision on penalties and drawback claim. Given the circumstances and the CHA's conduct as evidenced in the records, the Tribunal upheld the penalty of Rs.25,000/- imposed on the CHA under Section 114.In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the penalty imposed on the CHA by the Commissioner. The judgment emphasized the applicability of Sections 113 and 114 of the Customs Act in cases involving discrepancies in the handling and export of goods, highlighting the importance of accurate documentation and compliance with Customs regulations to avoid penalties and confiscation.(Dictated and pronounced in open court)