TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal Overturns Penalty for Import Violation, Emphasizes Compliance with Regulations</h1> <h3>M/s. CMA CGM Agencies (I) Pvt. Ltd. Versus CC (Port - Import), Chennai</h3> M/s. CMA CGM Agencies (I) Pvt. Ltd. Versus CC (Port - Import), Chennai - 2016 (341) E.L.T. 311 (Tri. - Chennai) Issues:Violation of Import Policy Conditions, Confiscation of Goods, Penalty Imposition, Validity of PSI Certificate, Abetment AllegationsViolation of Import Policy Conditions:The case involved M/s. CMA CGM Agencies (I) Pvt. Ltd., acting as the steamer delivery agent, facing a show cause notice for an alleged violation related to an invalid Pre-shipment Inspection Certificate (PSIC). The appellant was accused of not complying with Import Policy conditions, leading to a proposed confiscation of goods and penalty imposition under relevant sections of the Customs Act, 1962. The LAA confiscated the goods and imposed fines, which were upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) based on non-compliance with Import conditions as per Para 2.32 of the Handbook of Procedures.Confiscation of Goods and Penalty Imposition:The LAA confiscated the goods with a re-determined value and provided an option for redemption upon payment of fines. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal, upholding the confiscation and penalty imposition due to non-compliance with Import conditions and failure to provide necessary clarifications. The appellant appealed to the Tribunal against these decisions.Validity of PSI Certificate:The appellant argued that as a delivery agent, they should not be penalized for the re-assessment of the unit price declared by the importer. They contended that the PSI certificate issued by M/s. Ravi Energie INC, USA, was in the required format and complied with the Handbook and Public Notice. The appellant highlighted that the cargo inspection did not reveal any incriminating materials, challenging the confiscation of goods based on the alleged violation of the PSI Certificate requirements.Abetment Allegations:The respondent alleged that the appellant allowed the import of goods without a proper PSI Certificate, abetting the importer in contravening regulations. The adjudicating authority imposed penalties under Section 112 (a) of the Act based on these allegations. The appellant refuted these claims, arguing that the PSI certificate issuing agency's location does not need to match the cargo origin and that there was no evidence of mens-rea or abetment on their part.The Tribunal, after considering both sides' arguments and examining the records, found that the consignment was inspected and did not contain any prohibited materials. The Tribunal emphasized the purpose of the PSI Certificate and the absence of incriminating materials in the consignment. Referring to legal precedents, the Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to prove abatement charges against the appellant and set aside the penalty imposition, allowing the appeal.
TaxTMI 