Customs penalty on CHA unsustainable where Bill of Entry matched importer invoice and no contravention was proved.

Penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act was found unsustainable against the Custom House Agent because the Bill of Entry description matched the invoice description supplied by the importer. The alleged mismatch with the air way bill description did not, on these facts, establish culpable misdescription or any contravention by the CHA. As no breach by the CHA was made out, the issue of additional penalty for breach of the CHA licence did not arise. The appeal was allowed.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 was sustainable against the Custom House Agent when the Bill of Entry description matched the invoice description supplied by the importer, and whether any contravention by the CHA was established.

Analysis: The goods were described in the invoice and in the Bill of Entry as synthetic lining/flock fabric, and the description in the Bill of Entry tallied with the invoice furnished by the importer to the CHA. On these facts, the alleged discrepancy between the air way bill description and the Bill of Entry description did not establish culpable misdescription by the CHA. Since no contravention by the CHA was made out, the question whether penalty could additionally be imposed for breach of CHA licence did not require examination.

Conclusion: The penalty was unsustainable and the appeal was allowed.

---