2008 (12) TMI 467

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Enterprises, Bombay. The goods were cleared on payment of customs duty. Subsequent to the clearance of the said goods, there was a suspicion of undervaluation of the goods and hence, demand notice was issued to the importer, M/s. Manoj Enterprises, Bombay directing him to show cause as to why he should not pay the differential duty. Copy of the said notice was endorsed to the current appellant i.e., Custom House Agent (CHA) for information and necessary action. The show cause notice was adjudicated and the value of the consignment was enhanced and accordingly, a differential duty was worked out as payable by importer along with a penalty of Rs. 20,000/-. This order was also served upon the current appellant as a CHA. The importer preferred....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t would submit that the issue is whether the appellant is to be considered as an agent under provisions of Section 147 of the Customs Act, 1962 or not. It is his submission that the appellant herein was a CHA and acted as a Custom House Agent. His duties ended the moment he cleared the consignment and handed it over to the importer. This being the fact, it is his submission that the issue is now squarely covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Aspinwall & Co. v. CCE, Trichy - 2001 (132) E.L.T. 644 (Tri.-Chennai). He also draws support from the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Customs, Cochin v. Trivandrum Rubber Works Ltd. as reported in 1999 (106) E.L.T. 9 (S.C.). 4. The learned SDR reit....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....in the case of M/s. Aspinwall & Co. (supra) will cover the issue in favour of the appellant. We may reproduce the ratio, which is as under. "4. On a careful consideration of the submissions made by both sides, we find lot of force in the submissions made by the ld. Counsel. His submission is supported by the ratio of the judgment rendered in the case of CC, Cochin v. Trivandrum Rubber Works Ltd. (supra) and that of Tribunal judgment in the case of Krison Electronic Systems Ltd. v. CC, Calcutta (supra). Both the judgments deal in great detail about the function of the CHA as an Agent and his responsibility is to a limited purpose of arranging release of the goods, and once the goods are cleared he has no further function. The referen....