TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (9) TMI 540
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ities were being smuggled into the country by concealing them in container No.TGHU 8067219 by mis-declaring them as containing car seat cushions. Acting on the said intelligence, the said container was investigated by DRI. On 17.04.2014, the said container was examined but till 07.05.2014, no bill of entry was filed for clearance of the said goods. On 07.05.2014, Bill of Lading, delivery order, bond copy, KYC detail on consignee letter head, consignee's IEC copy, pan card copy and voter ID card copy, IGM etc. were obtained by DRI from M/s Sea Marine Shipping Agencies. Scrutiny of the documents related to the said container revealed that the consignment was covered vide Bill of Lading issued at Bangkok and IGM was issued by M/s Carbokorn Tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the same is his PAN card's copy but the signature on the same is not his signature, regarding copy of election card, he stated that the same is his election card, except the above he did not know anything about other papers. Thereafter, the statement of appellant namely, Sh. Anoop Mithas were also recorded who stated that he is engaged in handling of NBOCC containers movement as sub agent of Eminence Container Line, Port Trade Shipping Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Sea Port Line India Pvt. Ltd., Sea Express Shipping Agencies, Pvt. Ltd. and Rashi Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd. that major job as sub agent of shipping line was to provide delivery order, container monitoring, re-export of containers etc. They do not have any clients of import and providin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the delivery order of the said consignment. He also provided mobile number of Sh. Sanjay. In these set of facts, the show cause notice was issued to the appellant to impose penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act. Aggrieved from the orders of imposition of penalties, the appellants are before me. 3. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the penalty has been proposed against M/s Eminence Container Lines on the ground that they are the agent of M/s Alpine Shipping and on behalf of the principal and issued delivery order of the same to the consignee as mentioned in the Bill of Lading sent by their principal. Since they do not have their office in Tuglakabad they have appointed sub-agent to issue and collect all charges of the docu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ll the documents for the importer. In that circumstances, the appellant has taken due diligence while issuing delivery order, therefore, no penalty can be imposed on the appellant. To support his contention, he relied on the Hon'ble Delhi High Court decision in the case of CC (Import & General), New Delhi Vs. Buhariwal Logistics - 2016 (332) ELT 278 (Del) to say that the penalty on the appellant is not imposable. 5. On the other hand, ld. AR for the Revenue opposed the contention of the ld. Advocate and submits that in this case Bill of Lading has been issued by the appellant namely M/s Eminence Container Lines who has given wrong description of the goods therefore, they are liable for penalty. Moreover, in the case of Sh. Anoop Mithas, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to verify the antecedents of the importer diligently so as to inform the Department in case of any adverse observation. The other reason is that it had failed to "supervise its employees so as to thwart the illegal import of the impugned car". There was no finding, based on the evidence on record, that respondent No.1 was aware of the illegal import in which the G-card holder was involved. Considering that it was a question of penalty, there ought to have been some tangible material to show that respondent No.1 was aware of the acts of its employee/ agent, Mr. Prince. As rightly pointed out, if respondent No.1 was found to have acted in breach of Regulation 19(8) of CHALR, 2004, that might call for a separate action to be initiated under t....