TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (6) TMI 147
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....01.01.2002 and 141449 dated 02.01.2002, alleging misdeclaration as to the country of origin and evasion of Anti-Dumping duty. A Show Cause Notice dated 14.09.2014 was issued proposing demand of Anti-Dumping Duty together with interest and to impose penalty on the importer and also to impose penalty on the appellant herein. By the impugned order, the Commissioner of Customs(Port) confirmed the demand of Anti-Dumping Duty and imposed penalty on the importer and also imposed penalty on the appellant. 3. The ld.Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the appellant is a Customs House Agent (CHA), filed two Bills of Entry on the basis of the documents supplied by the importer. The goods are examined by the proper officer of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cating Authority observed that the appellant as CHA failed to discharge their obligation by not scrutinizing their documents properly. It is further observed that the appellant failed in his duties as a CHA by not furnishing the true and correct information. CHA cannot escape his obligation to comply with the provisions of section 46(4) of the Act, 1962. It is observed that the department's assumption based on the movement of vessel bearing freight difference and emphasize on China being the country of origin appears to be appropriate. It is also observed that the goods are indeed of Chinese origin but has been declared as Taiwan only to mislead the Customs Authority to evade Anti-Dumping Duty. 7. I find that the appellant is not conce....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion 112(a) of the Act, 1962. Section 112(a) provides that any person, who in relation to any goods does or omits to do any act, which act or omission, would render such goods liable to confiscation under section 111 or abets the doing or omission of such an act, shall be liable to a penalty. In the present case, there is no material available on record that the appellant CHA was involved with the importer of the allged offence committed by the importer. The Tribunal in the case of (a) Giavudan Indian Pvt.Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore [2010 (261) E.L.T. 975 (Tri.- Bang.)] observed as under :- "16. As regards the appeal filed by Shri Veeresh Gowda, Director of M/s Manjunatha Shipping Pvt. Ltd., CHA, who processed the documents ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lared in bill of entry, whereas no such brand name was mentioned in the invoice and packing list. Therefore, the CHA was aware of the consignments. We find that there is no evidence on record to show that the CHA had connived with the importer in respect of misdeclaration of consignments with intent to evade payment of duty. In absence of any evidence on record that the CHA had connived with the importer or with the other appellants and acted in a way which violated the provisions of the Customs Act read with other Acts and Rules, we find the penalty on the CHA is not sustainable and the same is set aside. The appeals are disposed off, as indicated above." (c) In the case of G.M. Enterprises v. Commissioner of Cus.(Export), Nhava Sheva [2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e on the part of the appellant about the forged advance licences. Even the officers cleared the goods against said licences and it is only subsequently on investigation that these licences were found to be forged and bogus. Under these circumstances, I find no justifiable reason to impose the penalties imposed upon the appellants. The same are, accordingly, set aside and appeals allowed with consequential relief to them." 6. Thus, it is apparent that the Tribunal after appreciating the evidence on record has found that there was no direct evidence on record to indicate that the respondent was aware of the fact that the advance licences were bogus and forged. The Tribunal has also found as a matter of fact that though there was some contra....