2020 (9) TMI 309

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cense holder bearing License No. R-007/88 issued under Regulation 7(1) of Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013 from the office of Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi. 3. That the appellant has been working efficiently and diligently as a Customs House Agent since 1985 and have clear antecedents. In more than about 34 years of work, the appellant does not even have a single complaint against him. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) has failed to take cognizance of the clear antecedent and faultless conduct of the appellant. Therefore, the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) is erroneous and perverse. One Shri Rakesh Sagar used to bring work to the appellant. He was just a middleman who connected the exporter with the CHA for the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....adies blouse being exported is of inferior quality. The CHA lacked mens-rea to commit the alleged offence. In absence of mens-rea or malafide, the CHA cannot be punished. Therefore the penalty upheld by ld. Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) is based on erroneous and ill-founded ground. It is denied that the CHA had ever taken Rs. 1 lakh over and above their usual charges. The original authority imposed penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- under the provisions of Section 114 and also imposed penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- under the provisions of Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 on the appellant, for the alleged acts of omission and commission. Being aggrieved, the appellant had filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), which was rejected. 5. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e relied upon and made a ground to prosecute the appellant, solely based on the statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. Corroborative evidence is necessary to initiate proceedings against the appellant accused as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vinod Solanki vs. Union of India (2008) 16 SCC 537 and Noor Aga vs. State of Punjab and Anr -2008 (56) BLJR 2254; Criminal Appeal No. 1034 of 2008 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 5597 of 2006, which is missing in the present case. 9. Ld. Commissioner has completely disregarded Section 138A of Customs Act, 1962, as the appellant has been penalised merely on the basis of preponderance of probability. He has not been able to assign any motive or knowledge of cheap quality R....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....der and Shri Rakesh Sagar. Further, I find that the allegation against the appellant - CHA of their having received Rs. 1 lakh per consignment is not substantiated, over and above the usual charges. Shri Rakesh Sagar have stated that he was to receive Rs. 4,000/- on bill and remaining amount of Rs. 1 lakh in cash, is not the representative of the CHA firm, and is an outsider. Thus, receipt of Rs. 1 lakh by Shri Rohit Sharma or Shri Rakesh Sagar is not the amount received by the appellant - CHA. I further find that the Prop. of the exporter firm and its Authorised Signatory have nowhere stated that they have paid any amount over and above usual charges to the appellant - CHA. Further, there is no allegation of any flow back of ill gotton dra....