TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (4) TMI 180
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nce Officers of Air Cargo Intelligence Unit, Chennai were informed by the officers at the Export Examination, Air India Shed, Air Cargo Complex, Chennai that Air India Security personnel, during the course of regular scanning of the consignments, suspected contraband concealed in cardboard cartons. Thus, the officers of the Customs immediately rushed to the Air India Export Shed and ascertained that 80 cartons of pomegranate fruits covered under Malaysian Airlines Airway Bill dt. 20.07.2012 and Shipping Bill dt. 20.07.2012 was filed by the Custom House Agent (CHA) M/s.G. Seenivasan (Appellant in Appeal No.C/40650/2014). The exporter of the consignment was mentioned in the shipping bill as M/s.A.M. Exporters, Tamil Nadu and the consignee nam....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....used the blank signed documents handed over by Sri G. Seenivasan for use in emergencies. Show cause notices were issued to all the appellants proposing to impose penalties alleging abetment of export of prohibited goods. After due process of law, the original authority imposed penalty of Rs.1 lakh on Sri G. Seenivasan under Section 114 (i) of Customs Act, 1962 and also imposed penalty of Rs.50,000/- on Sri S. Murugaram under Section 114 (i) of Customs Act, 1962. Aggrieved by such order, the appellants are now before the Tribunal. 4. The Ld. Counsel Sri L. Gokulraj appeared and argued for the appellant viz. G. Seenivasan. It is submitted that the appellant had been issued license as a Customs Broker for operating in Chennai. The license was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Shri S.Murugaram. It is submitted that appellant was the "G" card holder of CHA Shri G. Seenivasan. The documents for export as well as the pomegranate cartons were handed over to him by one Sri V. Radhakrishnan. Shri Radhakrishnan had told him that M/s.A.M. Exporters was his own company with his own IEC code. The appellant had believed these words and accepted the goods as well as the documents for export. The only finding recorded by the original authority in para-84 is that appellant has received the documents and cartons from Sri V. Radhakrishnan and therefore has connived in the attempt to export prohibited goods. The appellant did not have any knowledge that prohibited items were concealed in the cartons. There is nothing brought out....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed over the cartons to Sri S. Murugaram. Shri V. Radhakrishnan had made Sri Murugaram believe that he is the owner of M/s.A.M. Exporters. He had signed the documents on behalf of M/s.A.M. Exporters. However, when the officers of the Department questioned M/s.A.M. Exporters it came to light that the said firm had no knowledge about the export of pomegranate fruits. 12. On perusal of the impugned order at para-83, the original authority has recorded findings for imposing penalty on appellant viz. G. Seenivasan who is the CHA. It has been categorically stated by the adjudicating authority that there is no evidence to show that the appellant G. Seenivasan had knowledge that the cartons contained prohibited items. The relevant findings is repro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stem for export/import to meet their dubious objectives in illicit export/import of banned substances. The fact that he was not actively involved in the particular clearance and his part time employee/contractor only involved, do not absolve the CHA of his obligation. I accept the contention that the investigation do not reveal anything about his knowledge about the concealment of the prohibited drugs. However, the fact remains that, if the CHA/CB had exercised proper due diligence, at least the identity of the persons behind entire operation would have been clearly known. As seen, in the instant case, the suppliers of the contrabands are not yet identified." (emphasis supplied) 13. From the above, it can be seen that the investigation ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ontraband items were concealed in the cartons, I find that the penalty of Rs.50,000/- imposed on him is liable to be set aside. 16. My view is supported by decisions of the Tribunal in the case of Sarosh Nagarwala (supra). In the said case the appellant therein had attempted to illegally export prohibited goods viz. Red Sanders. The Tribunal observed that as there was no allegation that the appellant CHA had active involvement in the incident, the penalty imposed under Section 114 (i) of the Customs Act, 1962 was set aside as not sustainable. 17. In the case of Prime Forwarders (supra), the penalty imposed on the CHA was set aside observing that the there is nothing to show that the CHA was aware that the contraband was stuffed with Ferro....