2018 (1) TMI 1021 - AT - Customs

Tribunal Confirms Confiscation of Security Deposit for Misdeclaration of Exported Goods

Vijender Singh Versus CC, New Delhi

The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of the security deposit in an appeal against an Order-in-Original regarding misdeclaration of exported goods, ... Proceedings against CHA - Export of prohibited goods - forfeiture of security deposit - time limitation - Held that: - the time limit prescribed in the regulation is applicable regarding the suspension/ revocation of the license. In the instant case, neither the license was suspended nor revoked. So, the time limit is not applicable. In the instant case, only security deposit was forfeited for the offence on the part of the appellant - it is evident that the appellant was well aware that in the plastic bags of 50 Kg, there was prohibited item which was exported by M/s Vision Minerals & Energy without correctly declared and without having any report prior to export the goods. Thus appellant has violated his pious duties prescribed in the manual. The appellant is guilty - the security deposit amount has rightly been confiscated by the authority. Appeal dismissed - decided against Appellant. Issues:Appeal against Order-in-Original, Misdeclaration of exported goods, Levy of fines on exporter and CHA, Proceedings under Customs Brokers License Regulation (CBLR), Confiscation of security deposit, Appellant's plea for penalty cancellation, Appellant's knowledge of prohibited items, Revocation of CHA license, Adherence to time limits for license revocation.Analysis:1. The appeal was filed against Order-in-Original due to the misdeclaration of exported goods, where 'OWC' was actually found to be Muriate of Potash (MOP) of fertilizer, a restricted item. The Tribunal had previously cancelled the fine levied on the CHA in a separate Customs Act case.2. Proceedings were initiated under CBLR against the CHA for misdeclaration. The Assistant Commissioner found the CHA guilty and confiscated the security deposit. The appellant challenged this decision in the present appeal.3. The appellant's counsel argued for penalty cancellation, citing the previous Tribunal decision. The Department argued that the penalties under Customs Act and CBLR were distinct, justifying the confiscation of the security deposit.4. The Department emphasized the CHA's responsibility in protecting national interests and accused the appellant of negligence. The Department also referenced a case involving delay in proceedings and penalty imposition.5. The Tribunal deliberated on the gravity of the offence, the CHA's knowledge of prohibited items, and the revocation of the CHA license. It noted the importance of adhering to Circular No.9/2010 for timely actions.6. The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of the security deposit, considering the appellant's violation of duties and knowledge of the prohibited item. It dismissed the appeal and advised the advocate to maintain decorum in court proceedings.This detailed analysis covers the misdeclaration issue, penalty cancellation plea, CHA's responsibilities, license revocation, time limits for proceedings, and the final decision to uphold the security deposit confiscation.