TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (9) TMI 272
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nbsp; is filed against impugned order passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) whereby Commissioner(Appeals) upheld the penalty of Rs. 1 lac imposed on the appellant under Section 114(iii) of Customs Act, 1962. 2. The fact of the case is that appellant CHA has handled the exports clearance of goods on behalf of M/s. M.I. Industries. On investigation by&n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is lapse on the part of the CHA, the show cause notice was issued proposing penalty under Section 114(iii) on Customs Act, 1962 for aiding and abetting fraudulent claim of drawback. In the adjudication order, the adjudicating authority imposed penalty of Rs. 1 lac which was challenged by the appellant before the Commissioner(Appeals....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s any mis-declaration, the appellant is nowhere connected to that. Therefore for mis-declaration on the part of the exporter, CHA cannot be held responsible. He placed reliance on the following judgments: (a) Trinity Forwarders Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai[2005(192) ELT 407(Tri. Chennai)] (b) Palak Laser Video Club Vs. Commissioner of Cus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rder. 5. On careful consideration of the submissions made by both sides and overall facts of the case, I find that appellant CHA is not directly involved for aiding and abetting the fraudulent availemnt of drawback. He is not suppose to know what is the content of exports consignments as he is not suppose to open and physically verify the goods. However, ....