TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 459
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es of the value of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- respectively. On the x-ray screening, due to suspicious visual images, the consignments were detained vide Detention Memo dated 04.10.2019. The goods of both the consignments got examined by the Wildlife Inspector under Panchnama dated 25.10.019. The said Inspector vide report dated 25.10.2019 concluded as below: i) The export consignment covered under AWB no. 491686444350 contained 12 pieces of sandalwood totally weighing 27.30 kgs. ii) The export consignment covered under AWB no. 107294934569 contained two logs of sandalwood wrapped by metallic wire weighing 63.15 kgs. 3. Based on the said report, both the consignments were seized vide Seizure Memo dated 25.10.2019. The concerned jurisdictional Commissionerate also informed, vide letter dated 07.01.2020, that the exporter Shri P. Dhanaraj was not found available at the address mentioned on the KYC document (the Aadhar Card). The statement of Shri Deepal Singh Khati, the Clearance Specialist of the appellant was recorded, who stated about declaring copper wire based on the declaration given by the exporter. He also stated about voluntarily notifying to the Custo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... valuing at Rs. 10,000/- both dated 03.10.2019. The impugned courier shipping bills were based on the said documents. Learned counsel for the appellant impressed upon that the moment the confusion about the contents of the consignment arose, the appellant had voluntarily notified the mis-declared shipment to the Customs for further inspection and processing. Thus, apparently there is no violation of any of the regulations of CIER, 2010. Hence, the penalty even under section 117 of the Customs Act has wrongly been imposed. It is submitted that the impugned order has traversed beyond the show cause notice in holding that the appellant has violated Regulation 12 (1)(iii) of CIER, 2010 despite that there was no such allegations in the show cause notice. Decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs versus Toyo Engineering India Ltd. 2006 (201) E.L.T 513 (S.C.) has been relied upon. 6.1 With respect to alleged violation of Regulation 12 (1)(iv), it is submitted that as per Circular No. 7/2015-Cus dated 12.02.2015, in case of individuals, only one document which contains both viz. the proof of identity and proof of address shall be sufficient. Aadhar Card ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....und when the consignments were examined after x-ray examination, based on the suspicion arose. It is impressed upon that one of the Airway Bill bearing no. 491686444350 was found to have no copper wire and only sandalwood. The another Airway Bill bearing No. 107294934569 was found having copper wire but wrapping upon red sandalwood log. 7.1 Learned departmental representative also brought to notice that the consignment under AWB No. 491686444350 was open checked by the authorised person of M/s Universal Freight Solutions namely Balaji Singh as is coming from appellant's own letter dated 20.03.2020 (RUD VIII) declaring the said consignment to contain copper wire, is an apparent act of mis-declaration. M/s Universal Freight Solutions is admittedly the ASP/agent of the appellant. The appellant is clearly liable for the wrong committed by its agent. The said act amounts not only to a violation under Regulations of CIER, 2010, rather it is an act of criminal consequences. 7.2 Learned Departmental Representative further impressed upon that there is apparent allegations in the show cause notice against the appellant that appellant had failed to give intimation about the wrong declar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rmation." 11. The sub clause (v) of the said Regulation reads as follows: "(v) exercise due diligence to ascertain the correctness and completeness of any information which he submits to the proper officer with reference to any work related to the clearance of imported goods or of export goods;" 12. The joint reading makes it clear that it is not simply a verification based on authentic document but a due diligence to ascertain the correctness and completeness of same is also the duty of the courier agency under CIER, 2010. 13. No doubt there is no allegation of Aadhar Card being forged and that there is presumption of correctness to the documents being issued by the Government Authority. Also there is no dispute with respect to the case laws relied upon by the appellant in this respect, specifically decision of this Tribunal in the case of S. Prakash Kushwaha & Co. versus Commissioner of Customs (Airport & General), New Delhi reported as 2023 (384) E.L.T. 89 (Tri.-Del.). However, the facts of the present case are found different from these cases as is apparent from the above quoted admitted facts. 14. The another glaring fact coming out from those admissions i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....P of appellant had complete knowledge about the contents of the consignment under AWB No. 491686444350 but still no requisite intimation was sent by the appellant/ASP to the Customs Authority about wrong declaration in the documents submitted by the exporter P. Dhanaraj. The appellant also filed the shipping bills mis-declaring the consignments irrespective that the nature of the wood would not be ascertained by the appellant and the courier agency is not required to conduct such kind of final examination. But the fact remains is that consignment bearing AWB no. 491686444350 had no copper wire, still it was declared to contain only copper wire and consignment bearing AWB No. 107294934569 was not declared to have any kind of wooden logs but only copper wire. The declaration is apparently false. The mere contention of the appellant is that they had instructed the ASP to physically verify the consignment and to collect KYC cannot be sufficient due diligence required under CIER, 2010. Otherwise also, appellant is responsible for the act and conduct of its ASP/Agent. The Commissioner in the impugned order has recorded as follows: "That it was responsibility of ASP to comply wit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....these findings. Hence, the order under challenge, to the extent of imposing penalty of Rs. One Lakhs under section 117 of Customs Act, 1962 on appellant is hereby upheld. 18. Further due to the observation that the goods found in the consignment were prohibited goods (Red sandalwood), it is opined that the penalty under section 114 of Customs Act also gets attracted. But Commissioner (Appeals) has not given any categorical finding about said section. Since the Order in original has been upheld by the impugned order, same gets merged with the present order. Original adjudicating authority had discussed the proposal of imposition of penalty under section 114(i) is as follows: "I hold that the impugned goods were liable for confiscation under Section 113(d), 113(h) and 113(i) of the Act. I find that the exporter bearing IEC from the DGFT and been allowed for export/import, should have been very well aware of the law procedure regarding the goods which he intends to export. I find that the exporter has attempted to export the items which were declared as prohibited. I observe from the facts and records that the exporter mis-declared the goods and did not mention pieces of s....