TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (9) TMI 1837
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s appeal vide order dated 12.03.2019, this Court has admitted the following substantial questions of law, to be answered:- i. Whether there is scope for imposing penalty under Section 114 (iii) of the Customs Act, 1962 in the absence of any knowledge and specific role on the part of the appellant in the offence alleged to have been committed by some other person? And ii. In the absene of any evidence, whatsoever, to hold that the appellant had knowledge or actively participated in the export of shoes upper in order to claim huge drawback and is the Tribunal right in holding the appellant as abettor? 3. By the impugned order, the Appellate Tribunal has partly allowed Customs Appeal No. 230 of 2010 filed by the appel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The allegation against the appellant was that the appellant had failed to comply with the requirements of Custom House Agent Licensing Regulations, 1984 (Actually, Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004). 5. The impugned order is defended by the learned counsel for the Respondent on the ground that the impugned order does not call for any interference. It is submitted that no substantial questions of law arises for consideration under Section 130 (A) of the Act in two appeals. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent has also drawn attention to Regulation 13 (e) to (o) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004 which read as follows:- 13. Obligations of Customs AgentA Custom House Agent shall:- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Gunasekhar and his Association and that the said S. Balakrishnan, had clandestinely obtained ID card from the Customs, as if he was an employee of the appellant, with the intention to clear the export consignment. However, there are no documents to substantiate that at the time of the export, the said person was an employee of the appellant. The said was employed by the Appellant for two years and ID card was obtained for bona-fide purpose. 10.1 Relevant paragraph from the impugned order of the Tribunal reads as under:- "3.1. The appeal has been filed by M/s. Skylark Cargo Services against imposition of penalty of Rs. 3 lakhs under Section 114 (iii) of Customs Act, 1962. Appellants are a CHA. It has been alleged that appell....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appellant for the forgery alleged to have been made by Shri Balachandran. She also takes to paras 72 & 73 of the impugned order where there is narration of statement made by one Shri Divakaran dt. 09.09.2005 and 21.10.2005. which clearly shows that the said Shri Balachandran was not their employee but however as requested by Shri Balachandran he got him a "H" card; that as per office records, he had given 310 signed blank documents to Shri Balachandran for filing the shipping bills and that was done with a view to allow him to facilitate customs clearance for the export of Shri Gunasekhar. Ld. A.R also submits that in all, the appellant had handled more than 600 shipping bills for the exports done by Shri Gunasekhar. This being so, there ar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gation revealed that a company, by name, Sree Vinayaga Impex has been floated in the name of Shri G. Arumugam which had also made several consignments of such inferior/unusable leather shoe uppers and drawn ineligible drawback amount and that all the shipping documents of the companies owned/floated by Shri Gunasekhar were routed/represented by M/s Sree Vinayaga Impex to the freight forwarders and the airlines declaring themselves ad Custom House Agent. Shri S. Balachandran has deliberately concealed the fact that Shri Arumugam is the Proprietor and through that company only all the exports documents of 27 companies were dealt with. He has also purposely revealed certain names like, Ramu and others as if they had contacted him regarding exp....