2025 (11) TMI 791

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... firm, viz. M/s Anisha Overseas. The appellant had issued blank signed Annexure-A of M/s Anisha Overseas to one Shri Mathan, who happens to be the employee of another CHA firm, viz. Inter Freight Services P Ltd. The said Shri Mathan in turn provided those annexures to some other persons, viz. Shri Pauldurai and Shri Vadivel Jeyamani Kumar to file shipping bills in the name of 3 exporters, viz. M/s Green Baby Exports (hereinafter referred to as M/s. GBE), M/s Velmurugan Tex (hereinafter referred to as M/s VMT) and M/s Vetrivel Apparels (hereinafter referred to as M/s VVA), the goods exported by whom were found to be liable for confiscation under Sections 113(i) and 113(iii) of Customs Act, 1962 on account of mis-declaration of quantity and v....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the case of Ace Global Logistics Versus Commissioner of Customs, Chennai-III reported in 2018 (364) E.L.T. 841 (Tri. - Chennai) to submit that the act of handing over signed blank forms is only a bonafide mistake. Further, the Learned Advocate placed reliance on the decision in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai v. M. Vasi - 2003 (151) E.L.T. 312 (Tri.-Mum.) to submit that abetment presupposes knowledge of the proposed offence and in the absence of knowledge, penalty under Section 112 on the charge of aiding or abetting would not sustain. 4.4 The Ld. Advocate relied on the ratio of decision in the case of Lohia Travels & Cargo Versus Commissioner of Cus., New Delhi (Prev.) [2015 (330) E.L.T. 689 (Tri. - Del.) wherein Hon'ble Tri....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e appeal records. 7. The only issue for consideration in this case is whether the imposition of penalties on the Appellant under Sections 114 and 114AA of Customs Act, 1962 is legally justified or not? 8. The reasons set out in the impugned order passed by the original adjudicating authority for imposing penalties on the appellant read as under: - "Regarding consignment exported during March and April 2010 covered by 7 shipping bills filed by M/s Anisha Overseas, the containers were taken inside the ICD in the name of M/s Inter Freight Services P Ltd and the charges for the services rendered by the ICD was also paid by Shri Mathan by way of issuing cheques in the name of M/s Sugipriya & Co. This has been established by the do....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....spect of the impugned goods exported by M/s. GBE, M/s. VMT and M/s. VAA. 9. In order dated 13.09.2019 in CMA No. 439 of 2019 in the case of M/s. Skylark Cargo Services Versus The Commissioner of Customs (Airport & Aircargo), Chennai, Hon'ble Madras High Court has held that Section 114 (iii) of the Customs Act, 1962 applies only where and only if, it can be said that the appellant omitted to do such an act, which would have rendered the goods liable for confiscation under Section 113 of the Act. Following the above order, penalty imposed on the Appellant under Section 114 (iii) of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot be sustained. 10. Further in Lohia Travels & Cargo Versus Commissioner of Cus. New Delhi (Prev.) [2015 (330) E.L.T. 689 (Tri. - ....