Customs House Agent penalty fails where only routine clearing services were shown, without active participation in prohibited export.

A Customs House Agent who only assisted in storing export goods and performed functions under the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984 was held not liable to penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 in the absence of positive evidence of active participation in the attempted export of prohibited goods. Although the shipping bills described the cargo as permissible sandalwood articles, examination showed raw sandalwood pieces liable to confiscation. The Tribunal treated the exporter's representative as the principal actor in engaging the agent and found the agent's role confined to routine clearing services, so the penalty was unjustified and was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether a Customs House Agent who assisted the exporter in storing export goods and performed functions under the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984 could be subjected to penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 for the alleged attempt to export prohibited goods.

Analysis: The goods were described in the shipping bills as permissible sandalwood articles, but were found on examination to be raw sandalwood pieces liable to confiscation. The adjudicating authority had imposed penalty on the appellant along with the exporters and others. The Tribunal found that the principal actor in the transaction was the exporter's representative who engaged the appellant as clearing agent. No positive evidence showed that the appellant had actively ated in the attempted export of prohibited goods. The appellant's role was limited to assistance in storing the export goods and rendering services contemplated by Regulation 10(2)(b) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984.

Conclusion: Penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 on the appellant was unjustified and was set aside.

---