TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (3) TMI 380
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by he upheld the Order-in- Original dated 30.09.2016 passed by the Joint Commissioner and rejected the appeals filed by the appellant. The prayer in this appeal is to set aside the impugned order insofar as it upholds the penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs under section 114 imposed on the appellant by the original authority. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellant is the owner of M/s Phenomenal Logistics, a licensed Customs Broker. Shri Yogesh Suri, the senior export executive of the appellant is a G-card holder. He filed a shipping bill in the name of M/s Socomec India Pvt Ltd. on 10.11.2014. The consignment was consigned to M/s Wiltech Export and Import Pvt Ltd. Honkong. On 12.11.2014 Shri Yogesh Kumar Suri requested the Deputy Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... company had nothing to do with Shri Ahmed Ali or any or the other persons mentioned above. Accordingly, the consignment was confiscated penalties were imposed. 3. In this appeal, the only issue in dispute is the penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs imposed under Section 114 on the appellant for his role in the attempted export of red sanders whose export is prohibited unless one has a licence. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant took us through the facts of the case and submitted that on the day the shipping bill was filed, the appellant was travelling and the work was handled by Shri Yogesh Suri who knew Mr. Vir Badadur and got the documents from him. Shri Vir Bahadur in turn got the documents from Shri Anil Pandey and the consignment actually belon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a customs house agent the appellant was required to act with due diligence and contact the exporter, obtain the necessary papers before filing the shipping bill. In this case, the appellant filed the shipping bills in the name of a company with which it had no relationship whatsoever. It filed shipping bill for goods which are not even manufactured by IEC holder. The appellant had not obtained the documents either from the IEC holder or any executive or employee of IEC holder. It obtained the documents from one Shri Vir Bahadur who did not even claim to be the employee of the IEC holder. Shri Vir Bahadur, in turn, obtained the documents from Shri Pandey who, in turn, obtained the document from Shri Jha, who, in turn, obtained the documents ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... consent to any such thing done by an agent unless the contrary is proved for the purposes of proceedings under the Act, thus making the owner or importer liable for the acts of the agent. Similarly, under sub-section(3) of Section 147 in addition to the owner or the importer being liable for any infraction of law the agent who is authorised impliedly or expressly by the owner of exporter shall also be liable. Under the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 147 as noticed hereinabove, in so far as, it is a case of duty not leviable or short-levied or erroneously refunded then except where the such an eventuality had occurred on account of any wilful act, negligence or default of the agent it is provided that the duty shall not be recovered ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... there was no approval or licence to export it. Therefore, the goods were liable for confiscation under section 113. The short point to be addressed in this case is whether any act or omission of the appellant had rendered the goods liable for confiscation, and if so, the appellant is liable for penalty. 12. We find that a benami shipping bill was filed by the appellant. It would have been a different case if the appellant had filed the shipping bill at the behest of the IEC holder and thereafter it was found that consignment had some prohibited goods. However, in this case the appellant had not obtained any authorisation from IEC holder. It is also on record that IEC holder had no business dealings with appellant so there is no possibilit....