TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (11) TMI 944
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Co. is a CHA firm and the other appellant- Parvez J. Irani is the Partner of the firm. The partner of appellant firm knew one Yogesh who was an employee of another CHA firm. From the said employee the appellants had received CHA work during the last 12 months on 3 occasions for clearance of import cargo as well as for clearance of shipping bills for export under the duty drawback scheme. Further fact is that on 30/4/2008 the appellant-partner met the said Yogesh at JNCH building, near parking area, and was informed that there was a job of one M/s APW President Systems Ltd. having IEC code for export of zinc oxide under factory stuffing procedure. The said Yogesh also showed invoice bearing Central Excise examination report wherein the fact....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty imposed penalty under Section 114 (i) of the Act for an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs each on the CHA firm and the partner. Being aggrieved the appellant preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). 4. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order has taken notice of the order dated 9/06/2010 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (general) wherein the following findings have been recorded in favour of the appellants "31. To sum up, I am of the view that the CHA have performed their job in a casual manner. Even though, I do not fully concur with the findings in the Inquiry Reports, there are enough evidence on records that point out that the CHA have not behaved prudently. But for the lapses on the part of the CHA as enumerat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he impugned order. The Counsel further relies on the ruling's in the case of Neptune Cargo Movers Pvt. Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Customs 2007 (219) ELT 673, A Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Attempted Export of Red Sandalwood, Considering the fact that the CHA had no role in the transaction that led to confiscation of contraband, except that the manager of CHA being negligent, facilitated the export of prohibited goods. The same was not sufficient to hold the satisfaction of condition precedent for imposition of penalty under Section 114(i). This Tribunal have further recorded the finding that there was no Act of omission on the part of CHA which led to the confiscation. The Commissioner did not find that the CHA had kno....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ous person's attempted to export prohibited goods. Had the appellant been vigilant the attempted Red Sandalwood export could have been avoided. Accordingly the learned A.R. prays for dismissal of the appeal. 7. Having considered the rival contentions, I find that it is already concluded in favour of the appellants that they have not indulged themselves malafidely in filing of the shipping bill in question, leading to attempted export of prohibited goods. The Act of negligence and lack of vigilance on the part of the appellants have already been taken care of under the provisions of CHALR and the security deposit stands forfeited by the order of the Commissioner of Customs (General) as noted above. I further find that there is no findin....