TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 1726
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax imposing a penalty of Rs.85,000/- under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962. 2.1 Briefly stated the facts are that one M/s. Maapillai Vinayagar Exports, Chennai, a proprietor firm owned by Mr. Govardanan filed 52 Shipping Bills at ICD, Tirupur grossly inflating the value in order to obtain ineligible drawback. 2.2 The Appellant-CHA had filed 4 filed Shipping Bills which were dated 30.08.2002 for and on behalf of the exporter for export of Garments to Basel, Switzerland. 2.3 On the basis of intelligence, DRI Chennai have conducted investigations on these exports resulting in issuance of the Show Cause Notice dated 10.10.2006 under Rule 16 and 16A of C&CE Duty Drawback ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nation shown in the Shipping Bills to Customs for claiming duty drawback; (ii) investigation not implicated the CHA and he did not have any connection with any fraud committed by others. He has submitted that the role of CHA ceases soon after the goods have been cleared on let export order and handed over to the custodian. Further, it is submitted that CHA's role ceases once exported goods examined and allowed for export relying upon the Tribunal Chennai decision in the case of K.L. Alagu Murugappan Vs. CC, Trichy [2004 (163) ELT 352 (Tri.-Chennai)] wherein it was held that "the duty of the CHA ceases after the goods have been cleared out of customs charge and handed over to the shipping agency". 3.2 The Appellant has further contended tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on for clients. Appending signature by importer / exporter on the prescribed forms of Bill of Entry or Shipping Bill is sufficient compliance of obligation of CHA to get authorization" and he has also relied upon the decision by the Tribunal Mumbai in the case of Somaiya shipping Clearing Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai [2006 (197) ELT 552 (Tri.-Mum.)] wherein it was held that "penalty under Section 114 of Customs Act, 1962, not imposable on ground that CHA failed to file Authorization" in support of his contention that no penalty could have been imposed on the CHA. 3.5 The Appellant has further drawn attention to the decision of Chennai Tribunal in the case of Manasa Impex Service Vs. Commissioner of Customs & C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... red sander wooden logs. Even in the order of the Original Authority, it is held that the custom house agent has not discharged his duty in the normal course of his service. As rightly observed by the Tribunal, for failure to discharge functions as a Custom House Agent, penalties are provided in the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations. Therefore, imposition of penalty under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act is unwarranted. We, therefore, find no reason to differ with the finding of the Tribunal." 4. The Ld. Authorized Representative Ms. O.M. Reena appeared and argued for the Department. She has reiterated the findings of the impugned Order-in-Original No. 27/2009 dated 26.08.2009. She has stated that the Appellant-CHA had not obtain....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... correct to say that he had not verified the credentials of the exporter or not verified the Shipping Bill declarations. Written authorization was obtained from the exporter and processed the documents for export of goods. He has further advanced the plea that the role of CHA ceased soon after the goods have been cleared and let export order issued relying upon the Tribunal's decision in the case of K.L. Alagu Murugappan Vs. CC, Trichy [2004 (163) ELT 352 (Tri.-Chennai)]. 9. It is seen that apart from alleging vaguely that the CHA had not obtained exporter's authorization, investigation could not prove any lapse on the part of the Appellant as the goods being exported under draw back were examined by the officers who allowed the export. No....