TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (8) TMI 1007
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant - the Customs House Agent, to pay reduced penalty of Rs. 15,00,000/-. 2. The questions of law framed in this appeal are as follows:- "(i) Whether Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in imposing a penalty of Rs. 15 lakhs despite holding that Appellant was not involved in the clearance of the impugned offending consignment of M/s Planet Overseas? (ii) Whether the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal is perverse and contrary to the facts on record and mentioned in the order-in-original?" 3. The relevant facts of the present case are that on 27th March, 2012, the Customs Officers examined container No.HDMU 6480486 (for which no Bill of Entry had been filed) and found that it c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ms, Excise and Service Tax Appellant Tribunal, New Delhi vide impugned order No. 55930/2017 dated 18th August, 2017 held as under:- "7. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the record, it appears that on an earlier occasion, the appellant has cleared the consignment, which was meant for M/s Planet Overseas (Mr. Karandeep Singh, Proprietor). The said documents were not the proper documents somehow the consignment was cleared. The appellant has failed to discharge his obligations under the Board's circular No. 9/2010 dated 08.04.2010. Thus, the appellant has not discharged his duties to verify the KYC norms. 8. But fact remains that in the instant case, the appellant has not submitted any documents to clear the container in ques....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not be detected by the Appellant - a Custom House Agent. 9. She lastly states that the Customs House Broker Licence of the Appellant was suspended on the same allegation and it was restored by the Tribunal. 10. Per contra, Mr. Harpreet Singh, learned senior standing counsel for the Respondent states that M/s Planet Overseas was a bogus company with a non-existent bank account. He states that if reasonable precautions had been taken by the Customs House Agent in accordance with the statue, even the goods covered under Bill of Entry No.6078993 dated 23rd February, 2012 should not have been cleared. 11. Mr. Singh, also draws this Court's attention to the statement made by the Appellant under Section 108 of the Customs Act dated 27th March, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e with my C.A. Que: 12 What you have to say regarding the Bill No. 201112/309 raised by your firm to M/s Jai Vardhan Cargo A/C Planet Overseas? Ans: I state that the firm namely M/s. Jai Vardhan belongs to Sh. Surinder. Since, Sh. Surinder had provided the consignment to me, the Bill has been raised to him." 12. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that a Customs House Agent's duty is that of a mere agent rather than as a Revenue officer who is empowered to investigate and enquire into the veracity of documents. As to whether in reality, such an exporter in a given case exists can hardly be the subject matter of "due diligence" expected of a Customs House Agent unless there are factors which ought....