TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (5) TMI 913
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rs. 25,000/- imposed on the appellant by the adjudicating authority. 2. The fact of the case is that M/s. Indo Unique Trading Pvt. Ltd. had filed a Bill of Entry No. 3740362 dated 08-06-2011 through Customs House Agent M/s. Kismat Cleaning Agency (present appellant) for clearance of imported goods by declaring the same as Pair of Porcelain Dolls. The value of goods was declared as US$ 850. On physical examination of the goods by the Wildlife authorities revealed that the statues were made of natural ivory and import of ivory and its articles are prohibited under the Foreign Trade Policy and trade and commerce of the imported ivory is prohibited in India under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. The case was investigated by the SIIB(I)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd value, but the appellant was no where involved in this act of mis-declaration. He submits that initially when the appellant received invoice in the name of Mrs. Kusum Kedia, they found some discrepancy such as the I.E.C. was not in the name of Mrs. Kusum Kedia, but it was in the name of M/s. Indo Unique Trading Pvt. Ltd. and there were some other discrepancies like date and country of origin not mentioned. Therefore, the appellant informed to the overseas freight forwarder M/s. Encore Forwarding Inc., New York who booked the consignment. Thereafter the appellant CHA received the corrected invoice of the same no. wherein the description and value of the goods were same but invoice was in the name of M/s. Indo Unique Trading Pvt. Ltd. and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nvoices. This allegation is totally baseless and incorrect for the reason as explained above. In support of his submission, he placed reliance on following judgments:- (i) CC (General), Mumbai vs. Thwerdas Wadhoomal- 2009 (240) ELT A143 (Bom.) (ii) Thwerdas Wadhoomal vs. CC (General), Mumbai- 2008 (221) ELT 252 (Tri.-Mum.) (iii) Somaiya Shipping Clearing Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Mumbai- 2006 (197) ELT 552 (Tri.-Mum.) (iv) Saffire Lithographers vs. CC, Tuticorn- 2007 (215) ELT 210 (Tri.-Chen.) 4. On other hand, Shri S. J. Sahu, Ld. Assistant Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue, reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He submits that the appellant being CHA has handled filin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....noticed that CHA has not followed the rule 13(d), (e) and (o) of CHALR 2004 in this case by not bringing entire and correct facts to the notice of department. Hence, action against the appellant as provisions in the CHALR 2004 is also warranted and thus imposition of penalty on CHA under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 is justified." From the above finding, it is seen that the penalty on the CHA was imposed mainly for the reason that there were two invoices, one in the name of Mrs. Kusum Kedia and subsequently invoice was changed to M/s. Indo Unique Trading Pvt. Ltd. In this regard, it observed from the facts and the submissions that the first invoice was in the name of Mrs. Kusum Kedia, however there was no I.E.C. in the name of ....