2023 (3) TMI 380 - AT - Customs

Tribunal upholds penalty for attempted export of prohibited goods without license. Customs Broker's negligence leads to penalties.

The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed under Section 114 for attempted export of prohibited goods without a license. The appellant, a licensed Customs ... Levy of penalty u/s 114 of Customs Act - attempt to export of red sanders whose export is prohibited unless one has a licence - case of appellant is that appellant was not at fault for filing the shipping bill as per the documents as received by it and it was not aware about the true contents of the consignment. Whether any act or omission of the appellant had rendered the goods liable for confiscation, and if so, the appellant is liable for penalty? HELD THAT:- It is found that a benami shipping bill was filed by the appellant. It would have been a different case if the appellant had filed the shipping bill at the behest of the IEC holder and thereafter it was found that consignment had some prohibited goods. However, in this case the appellant had not obtained any authorisation from IEC holder. It is also on record that IEC holder had no business dealings with appellant so there is no possibility on the appellant innocuously filing a shipping bill in the normal course of the business. The papers were all provided by one Shri Vir Bahadur who was a clearing agent at the ICD and was neither an employee nor an agent of the IEC holder. The appellant had not obtained any authorisation from the IEC holder and Shri Vir Bahadur also did not project himself to be the employee of the IEC holder. There was a gross negligence on the part of the appellant and appellant’s act of filing the benami shipping bill and processing it and consequently bringing the consignment into the customs area had resulted in rendering the goods liable for confiscation under section 113 of the Customs Act - penalty imposed under section 114 of the act is justified and calls for no interference - Appeal dismissed. Issues involved:- Appeal against penalty imposed under Section 114 for attempted export of prohibited goods without a license.Detailed Analysis:1. Background of the Case: - The appellant, a licensed Customs Broker, filed a shipping bill for a consignment containing red sanders without proper authorization. - The consignment was discovered to contain prohibited goods, leading to confiscation and penalties being imposed.2. Contentions of the Appellant: - The appellant argued that they were unaware of the true contents of the consignment and had filed the shipping bill based on documents received from a third party. - They claimed that they had no mens rea or intention to violate the law and cited cases to support their defense.3. Contentions of the Department: - The Department argued that as a customs house agent, the appellant had a duty to act diligently and verify the authenticity of the documents before filing the shipping bill. - They contended that the appellant's actions of filing a benami shipping bill without proper authorization rendered the goods liable for confiscation.4. Judgment and Analysis: - The Tribunal found that the export of red sanders was prohibited, and the appellant had filed a benami shipping bill without proper authorization. - The appellant's negligence in verifying the documents and the lack of authorization from the IEC holder made them responsible for the attempted export. - The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed under Section 114, stating that the appellant's actions had rendered the goods liable for confiscation under Section 113.5. Conclusion: - The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the appellant's gross negligence in filing the benami shipping bill and bringing the prohibited goods into the customs area. - The judgment highlighted the appellant's responsibility as a customs house agent to act diligently and ensure compliance with the law, ultimately upholding the penalty imposed under Section 114.