Customs broker penalty under Section 112(a) set aside for lack of evidence of connivance in restricted goods import

CESTAT Bangalore set aside penalties imposed on customs broker under Section 112(a) of Customs Act 1962 regarding import of used multifunction digital photocopiers and printers. The broker was accused of conniving with importers to import restricted goods without mandatory documents. The Tribunal found no evidence proving the broker's direct or indirect involvement in connivance with importers. Since no action was initiated under Customs Broker Regulations and the broker acted in good faith following importer's directions, penalty could not be sustained. Appeals were allowed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
- Imposition of penalties on the appellant by the Commissioner under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act 1962 for involvement in importing restricted goods without mandatory requirements.

Summary:
The appellant challenged the penalties imposed by the Commissioner in two orders for importing used Multifunction Digital Photocopiers and Printers without following mandatory requirements. The Tribunal held that the goods were liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act 1962 but found that the appellants did not violate the Electronics and Information Technology (Requirement for Compulsory Registration) Order, 2012. The Tribunal determined redemption fine and penalty at 10% and 5% of the re-assessed value, respectively. The appellant argued that there were no specific allegations against them and no evidence of connivance with the importers, requesting the penalties to be set aside.

The Commissioner alleged that the appellant connived with the importers in clearing the restricted goods without mandatory documents. However, there was no evidence to prove the appellant's involvement. The Tribunal cited cases where penalties were set aside due to lack of evidence of connivance or abetment. It was noted that the penalties on the importers had already been imposed, and since the appellant was not penalized under Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, the penalty under Section 112(a) was deemed unsustainable. Therefore, the penalties imposed on the appellant were set aside, and the appeals were allowed.

---