2024 (5) TMI 630 - AT - Customs

CHA penalty under section 114(i) set aside for unauthorized carbon black loading without establishing mens rea

BHATIA SHIPPING PVT LTD Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS-KANDLA

CESTAT Ahmedabad allowed appeal against penalty u/s 114(i) imposed on CHA for unauthorized loading of carbon black container without LEO. The tribunal ... Penalty u/s 114(i) on CHA - Export of 'Carbon Black' - Obligation of CHA for the unauthorized loading of the container without LEO (Let Export Order) - breach of prohibition laid down u/s 34, 40 read with 51 of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT:- Considered, it is well settled including by the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Anchor Logistics v/s. C.C.[2013 (6) TMI 589 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] that invoking section 114 and its various clauses prior knowledge about the offending goods, as well as mensrea is required. Penalty, therefore cannot be imposed. Appeal is therefore liable to be accepted. Same is allowed with consequential relief. Issues Involved:1. Non-speaking Order by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. Obligation of CHA to supervise loading of containers.3. Breach of prohibition under Sections 34, 40, and 51 of the Customs Act, 1962.4. Imposition of penalty under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962.5. Absence of mandatory provision obligating CHA to inform the Shipping line about LEO.6. Responsibility of the Shipping line for unauthorized loading.7. Relevance of prior knowledge and mensrea for invoking Section 114(iii).Summary:1. Non-speaking Order by the Commissioner (Appeals):The Appellant contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not record findings against each submission made by them, rendering the impugned Order a non-speaking Order, which is unsustainable in law and deserves to be set aside.2. Obligation of CHA to supervise loading of containers:The Appellant argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to provide reasoning on how the CHA is obligated to supervise container loading, especially without the issuance of LEO by the Proper Officer. The Appellant maintained that the non-issuance of LEO and the loading of the container by the Shipping line cannot be termed as a contravention of the CHA's obligations to attract penal action u/s 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962.3. Breach of prohibition under Sections 34, 40, and 51 of the Customs Act, 1962:The Appellant submitted that the lower authority's findings that all persons committed breaches under Sections 34, 40, and 51 were erroneous. The Shipping line admitted their failure to discharge their duty, and thus, the findings forming the basis for imposing a penalty on the Appellant were not legally sustainable.4. Imposition of penalty under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962:The Appellant argued that the lower authority failed to invoke Sections 34, 40, and 51 in the Show Cause Notice, making the Order-in-Original beyond the scope of the Show Cause Notice and legally unsustainable. The Appellant cited several precedents, including Cargomar Vs. CC, Trichi, and Mohini Organics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC (Export), Nhava Sheva, to support their claim that penalty under Section 114(iii) is not imposable without evidence of incriminating conduct or knowledge.5. Absence of mandatory provision obligating CHA to inform the Shipping line about LEO:The Appellant contended that there is no mandatory provision under the Customs Act obligating the CHA to inform the Shipping line about the LEO. The statutory obligation was on the Shipping line to load the container only after receiving the LEO.6. Responsibility of the Shipping line for unauthorized loading:The Appellant argued that the unauthorized act of the Shipping line in loading the container without LEO cannot render the CHA liable under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962. The lower authority did not address the Appellant's submission that they had no control over the container once it was inwarded in the Port/Terminal.7. Relevance of prior knowledge and mensrea for invoking Section 114(iii):The Tribunal considered that prior knowledge and mensrea are required for invoking Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962, as held in Anchor Logistics v/s. C.C. and Arvind Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla. The decision of Blossom Grocery & Food India Pvt Ltd cited by the Department did not support the Department's case. Penalty, therefore, cannot be imposed.Conclusion:The appeal was accepted, and the penalty imposed on the Appellant was set aside, providing consequential relief. The judgment emphasized the necessity of prior knowledge and mensrea for the imposition of penalties under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962.