2009 (1) TMI 674

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ajak, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. -  The challenge in the present appeal is for imposition of penalty of Rs. 75,000/- upon the appellant, who is a CHA, in terms of provisions of Section 112 of the Customs Act 1962. In addition, trucks belonging to a transport company stands confiscated with an option to the appellant to redeem the same on payment o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t that the concessional benefits are correctly availed of by the importers. As the appellant, being a CHA has not properly executed his job, penalty stands imposed upon him. 4. The above findings are vehemently challenged by the ld. Advocate. He submits that the appellant was only a CHA and there is nothing on record to show that he joined hands with the importer to divert the goods en-rou....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ankar Tekari. In any case, it was only in one case out of the total five consignments that the goods were delivered at the different place under the instructions of importer. Merely because the goods were delivered at the adjoining premises other than the address noted in the advance licences, this fact cannot ipso facto lead to the conclusion that the appellant was hand in gloves with the importe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rket & post import violations by the importers cannot be a justifiable reason for imposition of penalty on the CHA, as observed by the Tribunal in the case of P.C. Chakravorty reported in 2008 (229) E.L.T. 675 (Tri.-Kolkata). 7. Similarly, in the case of C.R. Shukla v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai [2005 (187) E.L.T. 31 (Tri.-Mumbai)], it was observed that mere fact of delivering the goo....