TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 1344
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(iii) and penalty of Rs. 25,000/- under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962. 1.1 The case of the appellant in brief is that an intelligence was gathered by Special Intelligence and Investigation Branch, Customs House Mundra to the effect that M/s. Dynamic International, Surat are trying to export waste clothes 'chindis' in the guise of Ladies Fancy Scarves in 7 containers to avail the benefit of duty draw back sought to be cleared at Exim Yard CFS under 36 shipping bills filed by Customs Broker M/s. DP Logistics for export of goods valued at Rs. 19.60 crores and attempting to avail duty drawback of Rs. 1.85 crores. The SIIB section started the investigation in the case and the goods were examined under panchnama. On examination, goods w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2013. Regarding the allegations, M/s. D P Logistics stated that they have not received e-mail intimation in respect of special shipping bills filed through CMC Service Centre, as the same were not filed using ICEGATE User-ID. Shri Nitesh Gangwani who filed shipping bills was not holding H Card at the time of filing of such shipping bills as it was expired on 30th June, 2015. Shri Nitesh Gangwani in his statement dated 20th August, 2015 stated that he filed the shipping bills without knowledge of M/s. D. P. Logistics. 3. In the impugned Order-in-Original learned Principal Commissioner concluded that even if it is assumed that M/s. D. P. Logistics may not have received e-mail intimation as the shipping bills were filed through CMC Service....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onsultant Shri Prashant Patankar also submitted that the Commissioner has observed in the impugned order that except small negligence about not intimating the department about expiry of H Card of Nitesh Gangwani on the part of the CB which attracts action under CBLR 2013, if any no evidence was found against the appellant Customs Broker regarding abetment or omission to do any act which rendered the goods liable for confiscation or in contravention of any of the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. 4.1 The learned consultant also submitted that no penalty can be imposed under Section 114 (i) for alleged violation of CBLR, 2013. The learned consultant also submitted that no penalty can be imposed under Section 114 for lack of supervision ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ultant for the appellant and the learned AR for the department, I have perused the record. 6.1 I am of the view that impugned order, passed by the learned Commissioner regarding imposition of penalty under Section 114 (iii) and 117 of Customs Act, 1962 is against his own observations made at page no. 53 para 24.3 of the impugned order. It is pertinent to mention here that at page 53 para no. 24.3, the learned Commissioner has observed, "except for small negligence on the part of the said noticee, which attracts action under CBLR, 2013 if any, I do not find any evidence against the said noticee in the abetment or omission to do any act which rendered the goods liable to confiscation or in contravention of any of the provisions of Customs ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the goods, as declared by the exporter or the value as determined under this Act, whichever is greater." 6.3 Therefore, penalty under Section 114 (iii) can be imposed only if the person concerned does or omits to do any act which would render the goods liable to confiscation under section 113 or abets the doing of such act or omission. In this case, the learned Commissioner has himself concluded at page 53 para 24.3 that he did not find any evidence against the appellant in the abetment or omission of any act which rendered the goods liable to confiscation. Therefore, in these circumstances, penalty under Section 114 (iii) against the appellant is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside. Section 117 of the Customs Act provid....