Penalty on customs house agent set aside for lack of evidence of conscious involvement in concealed imported goods

Penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act was considered unsustainable where the customs house agent's role was limited to document preparation, the importer filed the bill of entry on a self basis, and no corroborative material showed prior knowledge of the concealment of undeclared goods. The Tribunal also noted that no proceedings had been initiated under the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013, and treated the absence of such proceedings, together with the lack of evidence of conscious involvement, as fatal to the penalty case. On that basis, the penalty was set aside and the appeal was allowed.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 could be sustained against a customs house agent when the record did not show knowledge of concealment of undeclared goods and no proceedings had been initiated under the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013.

Analysis: The appellant's role was recorded as limited to assistance in preparation of documents and the bill of entry was filed on self basis by the importer. No corroborative material was brought on record to show that the appellant had prior knowledge of the concealment of memory cards in the imported consignment. The Tribunal also noted that proceedings had not been initiated against the appellant under the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013, and relied on the view that penalty under Section 112(a) is not sustainable against a customs broker in the absence of such proceedings and supporting evidence of conscious involvement.

Conclusion: The penalty was not sustainable against the appellant and was set aside. The appeal was allowed.

---