2017 (6) TMI 743

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....irm filed export documents under the Shipping Bill No. 3794947 dated 23.06.2010, in the name of M/s. Tirupur Pandit Hosiery Mills Pvt. Ltd., declaring the goods to be "combed yarn; waxed for knitting". 3. The matter was taken by the DRI and it was found that the exporter attempted to export "Red sander logs" in the guise of "combed yarn; waxed for knitting". During investigation, statements of various persons were recorded including the statement of the present respondent. It came to be noticed that one Shri David, employee of the M/s. Tirupur Pandit Hosiery Mills Pvt. Ltd., contacted the respondents over mobile phone and e-mail for undertaking the job of CHA and after verifying IEC code number as also the other particulars, the CHA filed ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ntials of the exporters. Hence, he cannot be blamed. Moreover, penalty imposed on him under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962, is not at all correct, when the offence, if at all any, was committed under CHAL Regulations and the maximum penalty that can be imposed under that section is R. 1,00,000/- only. It is the irony of fact that nowhere in the SCN action was proposed against the appellants under Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations. The LAA also could not travel beyond the SCN and hence penalties imposed under the section proposed under the SCN, which is legally not maintainable. I find force in the appellants arguments in this regard. Though appellants could have been easily implicated under the CHALR, since there was no propo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ies in accordance with law cannot be held to be a sufficient ground for imposition of penalty upon him. To the Similar effect, is another decision of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Boria Ram and others Vs. CC, New Delhi reported as 2017 (3) TMI 759 (Cestat-ND). For better appreciation the relevant portion from the said order is reproduced as under: "Having gone through the impugned order, we find that the main reason for the adjudicating authority to impose penalty on the said CHA is that, he has failed to follow the provisions of CHA Regulations, 2013 and they have not adhered to the requirements and thus, are guilty of filing the shipping bills, in utter disregard to the provisions, placed on them by the Regulations. If that be so, we....