TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (11) TMI 1502
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....osed on the respondent (Director of CHA firm), Shri Sohel Firoz Kazani and the employee Shri Ramdas T Gadge of the CHA firm M/s Interport Impex Pvt. Ltd. imposed under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 was set aside. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the officers of SIIB, JNCH along with examination staff of Customs posted at Speedy Multimodes Ltd., Navi Mumbai examined an export consignment in the presence of CHA representative on 31.8.2010 of M/s Crescent Trading and Impex Co., Pune. On detailed examination and due testing of samples, it was found that actual goods under export declared as Dal Husk, were actually non-basmati rice which is prohibited vide Notification No. 38/07 dated 15.10.2007. Detailed investigation reveal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nment which did not have marks and number. The Shed Officer had directed the authorized employee of the CHA (respondent No. 2) to the de-stuff the container for examination. The said employee had complied with the instruction and had de-stuffed the container in the yard on 26.8.2010. It is the matter of record that the respondent No. 1 had himself informed the authorities i.e. the Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Export) in writing with a copy marked to Manager and Apprising Officer at Speedy CFS, the Commissioner of Customs (Export) and the officer of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence on the same date i.e. on 26.8.2010 itself, informing with reference Shipping Bill No. 8781138 dated 23.8.2010 about the mis-declaration of cargo discover....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o. He with the CHA's representative examined the cargo and instructed the CHA representative to de-stuff the cargo for examination. It is also mentioned that while de-stuffing of the cargo was done on 26.8.2010, it was noticed that no shipping marks and number, as per the related invoices, were found on the gunny bags. It is further observed that the statement of the CHA representative and respondent No. 2 Mr. R.T. Gadge, in which he had stated that on 25.8.2010 around 17.30 hrs. two containers for export in the name of M/s Crescent Trading and Impex were taken in by him at Speedy CFS. That around 7.00 pm when he asked Customs officer Shri Sonavane to examine the goods, he was told by Shri Sonavane and Supdt. V.K. Menon that the goods cou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the Customs authorities in writing. Thus, the action of the CHA cannot be considered to be an after-thought. Further, no other mala fide was found regarding the use of IEC of another by the said Anand Kursija and Shri Gurbani. Accordingly, the Commissioner (Appeals) found that the penalty imposed on the respondent Director and the CHA is bad and set aside the same. The Commissioner (Appeals) also relied on the ruling of this Tribunal in the case of Airtravel Enterprises India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Sea Port), Coimbatore - 2009 (239) ELT 275 (Tri-Chennai) and also the ruling in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Prev), West Bengal Vs. Over Land Agency 2006 (204) ELT 554 (Cal). In the case of Airtravel Enterprises (supra)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... penal action under Section 114(i) of CA 62. 3.3 The officer in his report mentioned that while de-stuffing the cargo which was done on 26.08.2010, it was noticed that no shipping marks and numbers, as per the related invoice were found on the gunny bags. It was impossible to read the marks and nos on the gunny bags stuffed in the 40 feet container during the night time on 25.08.2010. 3.4 It was seen that the employee of the CHA approached Customs officer at about 07.00 pm for examination on 25.08.2010 and there was an attempt to get the goods cleared without bringing the goods out of container. 3.5 CHA had not followed the public notice no. 75/2010 dated 20.07.2010. 3.6 It was a responsibility of the CHA to verify the anteceden....