TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (7) TMI 390
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al in the importation of three consignments of misdeclared goods including shoes, alkaline batteries and wooden strips/beads. 2. The Custom House Agent, M/s Krishna Shipping Agency (Appellant 1) filed the Bills of Entry in this case. Accordingly, their License was initially suspended vide order dated 16.09.2011 and later revoked by an order dated 23.04.2014, for failure to verify the antecedents and identity of the client under Regulation 13(a), (d), and (o) of the CHALR, 2004. On appeal the order of revocation was set aside by the Tribunal, Kolkata vide Order dated 15.09.2016. However, the penalty imposed on them in the impugned order dated 11.03.2016 was not set aside . Accordingly both the Appellants 1 and 2 are before us against imposition of penalty on them under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. 3. In their submission, the Appellant 1 stated that the adjudicating authority has imposed penalty on them on the ground that they have violated the provisions of Regulation 13 of CHALR, 2004. However, the Tribunal Order dated 15.09.2016, while setting aside the order revocating their license, has categorically held that they have not violated any of the provisions of Reg....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t consignment under investigation from Sri Sunil Kumar, Proprietor of M/s Prince International, that he negotiated the business deal with Sri Sunil Kumar of M/s Prince international; that he received two set of documents from M/s Prince International in respect of the said three consignments, one set of scanned copy through e-mail and the original set through courier, that earlier he had handled two consignments of wooden strips and Wooden Beading' of the said M/s Prince International; that out of the three consignments, he had filed the Bills of Entry with the Customs Authority for two consignments on the basis of scanned copy of documents received through E-mail. 12.1 In response to a specific question as to whether he had verified the documents forwarded by M/s Prince International before filing with the Customs, he stated that he did not verify the documents before filing Bills of Entry before the Customs on the plea that the importer was pressurizing to file the shipment paper urgently and hence he filed the unsigned invoices and packing lists to Customs without noticing the shortcomings" 8. We find that the Commissioner has given a findings in the impugned order r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to evade Customs duty. I also hold that he has violated the relevant provisions of (Regulation-13) of the CHALR 04 and for their acts of omissions, and commission; he is liable to penalty under Section 112 (a) of the C/A'62. 9. From the findings of the adjudicating authority we observe that the CHA partnership firm and its Partner, both have been penalized for the alleged offence committed. We observe that the Tribunal Order dated 15.09.2016, while setting aside the order revocating their license of the CHA has categorically held that they have not violated any of the provisions of Regulation 13, of CHALR, 2004. The relevant portion of the order is reproduced below: "5. Heard both sides and perused the case records. The issue involved in these proceedings is whether adjudicating authority is justified in revoking the CHA license of the appellant under Regulation 20(1) for not discharging the obligations under Regulations 13(a), (d) and (o) of CHALR. The said Regulation are reproduced below:- "REGULATION 13. Obligations of Customs House Agent. - A Customs House Agent shall - (a) obtain an authorization from each of the companies, firms or individuals by whom ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... In view of the findings in the Tribunal order dated 15.09.2016, we hold that penalty cannot be imposed on the CHA Firm as well as its Partner under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. 10. The Appellant 2 specifically contended that the adjudicating authority imposed separate penalty against the partner in addition to imposing penalty on the firm. He stated that a partnership firm is not an independent legal entity and it is inseparable from its constituent partners. It is a settled proposition of law that once a partnership is penalized, its partners cannot be penalized separately for the same offence. We agree with the Appellants contention. Once a partnership Firm is penalized, then the Partner cannot be penalized again for the same offence. Accordingly, we hold that the penalty imposed on the Appellant 2 is not sustainable and liable to be set aside. 11. The Appellant 2 cited the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Pravin.N.Shah Vs CESTAT, 2014(305)ELT 480(Guj), wherein it has been held as under: "3. It is not disputed that penalty has been imposed on the firm. The Tribunal [2010 (261) E.L.T. 515 (Tri. - Ahmd.)] has imposed penalty on the partn....