TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (5) TMI 1004
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rein Shri Deepak Kumar has admitted his guilt of illegal imports and has already paid the duty. He already accepted that the goods may be confiscated. As such, we are of the view that Shri Deepak Kumar is not interested in pursuing the present appeal, the same is accordingly dismissed for want of non- prosecution. 2. As regards the balance two appeals, we find that M/s. P.P. Dutta is a CHA firm upon whom penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs stand imposed and Shri Naveen Kumar Singh is a G card holder of M/s. P.P. Dutta upon whom the penalty of Rs. One lakh has been imposed under section 112 (b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The present G card holder and CHA filed Bill of Entry on behalf of the importer Shri Deepak Kumar son of Shri Om Prakash declaring cert....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....isions of said CHA Licensing Regulations. 4. After going through the impugned order and after appreciating the submissions made by both the sides, we note that penalty primarily stand imposed upon the appellant on the alleged violation of CHA License Regulation. The Hon'ble High Court in the case of CCE vs. Buhariwal Logistics [2016 (332) ELT 278 (Del)] has observed that a CHA cannot be held liable to penalty for failure to supervise his employees in absence of any evidence to show that he was aware of their acts and if CHA has acted in breach of Regulation, separate action could be initiated against them under those Regulations but the said fact by itself cannot justify imposition of penalty under section 112 of the Customs Act. 5. Simil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for which the CHA has not given any reasonable explanation. The appellant in their reply to the show cause notice had taken a categorical stand that they were trying to persuade the import to assist in 100% examination of the goods and it is only when they were not responding that NOC was filed. We note that such delay in filing NOC cannot be adopted as a ground for imposition of penalty under section 112(b) of the Customs Act. Similarly the fact that appellant did not bring the matter to the Customs about their doubt regarding the consignment also cannot be adopted as a reason for imposition of penalty inasmuch as it was the Customs own alert about the Bill of Entry which created the doubt in mind of the CHA and not vice versa. As such, b....