1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Customs House Agent Appeals and Wins Penalty Appeal for Goods Diversion</h1> The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, AHMEDABAD, allowed the appeal by Shri Sanjay Dave, a Customs House Agent, in the case of M/s. Prime Forwarders. The penalty ... Penalty on CHA - Diversion of duty free goods to local market The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, AHMEDABAD, in the case of M/s. Prime Forwarders, considered an appeal by Shri Sanjay Dave, the appellant, a Customs House Agent (CHA) who filed 5 Bills of Entry for clearance of Zinc Ingots and Copper Wire Rods. The Commissioner of Customs, Kandla, held that the goods were liable for confiscation as they were diverted to the local market instead of being used for export. A penalty of Rs. 50,000 was imposed on Shri Sanjay Dave under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant argued that the penalty was unjustified as he was not aware of the diversion. The Tribunal found that the appellant did not abet the diversion and set aside the penalty, stating that the provisions of Section 112 were not applicable. The Commissioner's observations highlighted the appellant's failure to fulfill obligations under the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984, but noted a lack of evidence proving his knowledge of the diversion. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside for the appellant.