Customs Tribunal overturns penalties for employee in CHA appeal, finds no aiding/abetting, grants relief under Customs Act (a)

The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by an employee of a Customs House Agent (CHA) company against an order-in-original that imposed penalties due to mis-declaration in the Bill of Entry, confiscation of goods, and allegations of aiding and abetting in smuggling activities. The Tribunal found no evidence of aiding and abetting by the appellant, attributing responsibility to the CHA company. As a result, the penalty imposed under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act was set aside, granting the appellant consequential benefits in a judgment pronounced on 10.09.2020.

---

---

Issues: Mis-declaration in Bill of Entry, Confiscation of goods, Penalty imposition under Section 112(a) of the Act, Allegations of aiding and abetting, Appeal against penalty imposition.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, an employee of a Customs House Agent (CHA) company, filed an appeal against an order-in-original which held that mis-declaration in the Bill of Entry led to the confiscation of prohibited goods and imposition of penalties on various parties, including the appellant.

2. The Tribunal noted that the impugned order involved multiple parties and directed the registry to check for any related appeals. No other appeals were found against the impugned order.

3. After hearing the parties and examining the record, the Tribunal proceeded with the case.

4. The case originated from specific information about smuggling activities by M/s Brij Enterprises. A container was detained and found to contain mis-declared goods, including prohibited items, leading to a show cause notice alleging collusion with the smuggling racket's kingpin.

5. Statements of various individuals, including the appellant, were recorded during the investigation, detailing their roles in the clearance process and interactions with the importer and other involved parties.

6. The appellant's statement highlighted his responsibilities in handling import documents, cash transactions, and container clearance activities, emphasizing his acquaintance with the importer and his belief in following instructions.

7. The Director of the CHA company failed to appear before the Customs Officer, contributing to the allegations of aiding and abetting against the appellant and others.

8. The Tribunal considered arguments from both sides, with the appellant's counsel emphasizing the lack of evidence showing personal gain or collusion on the appellant's part, attributing responsibility to the CHA company.

9. After evaluating the contentions, the Tribunal found no evidence of aiding and abetting by the appellant. It concluded that the penalty imposed lacked justification and set it aside under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act.

10. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, granting the appellant consequential benefits as per the law, with the judgment pronounced on 10.09.2020.

---