TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (5) TMI 496
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2005, dated 20-4-2005. In the impugned order the Commissioner of Customs (Exports), Chennai had adjudicated a Show Cause Notice issued to confiscate seized red sanderwood logs, 2920 kgs of popcorn maize, the two containers in which the said goods had been stuffed and the conveyance used to transport the containers and to penalise various persons involved in the attempt to unauthorizedly export red sanderwood logs in contravention of the prohibition. The investigation conducted based on intelligence received had revealed that Shipping Bills No. 1584033 and 1584034 both dated 23-4-2003 filed in the name of M/s. Rajeshwari Exports Inc. for export of pop corn maize had actually been filed without the knowledge of M/s. Rajeshwari Exports Inc. an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hri Muralibabu and Shri S. Somesan for getting their signatures on the documents. The appellants apparently had not taken due precaution and care expected of a CHA including meeting the exporter on whose behalf they had undertaken the customs documentation work. Thereby the appellants appeared to have abetted and aided in the smuggling of red sanderwood logs. Notice was issued to the appellants to penalize them for their alleged acts of omission and commission. The proposals in the notice issued were contested by the appellants by citing following judicial authorities which had laid down the ratio mentioned against each. (i) Commissioner of Customs, Kolkata v. Mahendra Patni [2004 (164) E.L.T. 259 (Tri.-Kolk....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nalties imposed under Section 114 (i) of the Act. As regards the appellants' involvement in the transactions inviting penalties on them, the Commissioner had found as follows :- "I find that the case can be distinguished inasmuch as the acts of the CHA show that he has been negligent in his duties as a CHA and he had handed over the blank signed documents for a fee of Rs. 300/- as admitted by S/Shri Muralibabu and S. Somesan, partners of the CHA in their statement. By this negligent act M/s. Neptune's Cargo Movers Pvt. Ltd. And Shri M.M. Parthasarathy, Manager of M/s. Neptune's Cargo Movers Pvt. Ltd. have facilitated the export of Red Sanderwood Logs and permitted the unscrupulous persons to use the Customs channel for attempting illegal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....principal or principals. Encouragement did not, of necessity, amount to aid and abet. They extracted the adjudicating authority's findings about the persons who had apparently conceived the modus operandi and attempted to smuggle out the prohibited goods by misusing the name of a regular exporter. In the absence of any finding as regards the appellants' informed involvement in the operation (that led to the confiscation of the seized goods), the impugned penalties were unjustified. 5. During the hearing, ld. Counsel for the appellants reiterated the arguments contained in the appeal and cited various case law, which had also been cited in the appeal. Ld. SDR reiterated the reasoning followed by the Commissioner in the impugned order....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ea of the appellants that penalties imposed on them were not justified. 7. In Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa - 1978 (2) E.L.T. (J 159) (S.C.) = 1970 (1) SCR 753 - the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows :- "The discretion to impose a penalty must be exercised judicially. A penalty will ordinarily be imposed in cases where the party acts deliberately in defiance of law, or is guilty of contumacious or dishonest conduct, or acts in conscious disregard of its obligation; but not, in cases where there is a technical or venial breach of the provisions of the Act or where the breach flows from a bona fide belief that the offender is not liable to act in the manner prescribed by the statute." I find that in the instant case t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s also been imposed solely on the ground that appellant had appended his signature in various documents without due verification of the contents of the goods which was later found to be other than what was declared in violation of provisions of Customs Act. The Tribunal judgment which has been referred to by the Counsel that some degree of knowledge of contravention of law on the part of the abettor must be shown for imposition of penalty under Section 112 of Customs Act as held in the case of Liladhar Pasoo Forwarders Pvt. Ltd. v. CC, Mumbai (supra) also would apply to the facts of the case. The Tribunal also likewise held in the case of Shaikh & Pandit v. CC, Calcutta (supra) that penalty under Section 114 cannot be imposed on CHA who is ....