2024 (8) TMI 1065

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals - II), Chennai (impugned order). 2. Brief facts of the case are that M/s. Vantech Systems, Chennai have imported goods declared as lunch boxes in 8 consignments. The imports were handled by the appellant A. Sathyanarayanan in his capacity of being a Custom House Agent (CHA). Investigation was conducted by the Directorate of Revenue intelligence on information that the importer was concealing Electronic goods among the declared cargo (Tiffin Boxes). It appeared that the appellant had conspired with the importer to clandestinely clear goods concealed in the container. As a result of action that was initiated against the appellant among others and a penalty of Rs.1,50,000/- was imposed on him under sec. 1....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... correctness of the penalty imposed on an employee of a liner held that the penalty is not maintainable. From the above, it is clear that penalty is imposable under Section 112(b) only if there is any positive evidence against the appellant of having dealt with the imported cargo in any way. This is missing in the present case. Therefore, he prayed that the Tribunal may be pleased to set aside the penalty imposed in the impugned order-in-appeal and thus render justice. 3.2 The learned AR submitted that as per the investigation the importer and CHA arranged for the trailers for the movement of the containers from Docks to CFS. The gate registers at Docks and CWC revealed it took 19 hours for the movement of the containers instead of the usu....