Customs House Agent penalty for misdeclaration requires proof of knowing participation, connivance, or abetment.

A Customs House Agent is not liable to penalty for misdeclaration in a Bill of Entry merely because it filed the entry on the importer's documents. Penalty under section 112(a) of the Customs Act applies only where there is evidence of knowing participation, connivance, or abetment in the act rendering goods liable to confiscation. Where the CHA acts on documents supplied by the importer and there is no material showing that it knowingly inserted false particulars, advised misdeclaration, or helped evade duty, penalty is unwarranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 could be imposed on a Customs House Agent for alleged misdeclaration in the Bill of Entry when there was no material to show knowledge, connivance, or abetment on its part.

Analysis: Section 112(a) fastens penalty only where a person, in relation to goods, does or omits to do an act rendering the goods liable to confiscation or abets such act or omission. Section 46 places the statutory declaration of the contents of the Bill of Entry on the importer, while the CHA acts on the documents supplied by the importer for filing the entry. On the facts, the appellant had prepared and filed the Bills of Entry on the basis of the importer's documents, and there was no material showing that it knowingly entered false particulars, advised the importer to misdeclare, or connived in evading anti-dumping duty. In the absence of evidence of conscious participation, penalty on the CHA was held unwarranted.

Conclusion: Penalty under section 112(a) was not sustainable against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The penalty was set aside and the appeal succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: A Customs House Agent cannot be penalised under section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 for misdeclaration by the importer unless there is material showing knowing participation, connivance, or abetment in the offending act.

---