TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 173
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aring No. TCKU 2571904 said to contain 740 pieces of 'Accessories of sanitary ware E.W.C. Commodes and Wash Basin' under the Shipping Bill No. 6092170 dated 25.02.2016 was presented for export to Singapore in the name of M/s. Srijita Exports by one Customs Broker (CB) named M/s. A.K. Sircar & Sons. The said consignment was intercepted by DRI, Kolkata at N.S. Dock, Kolkata Port and after examination, the said container was found to contain Red Sander (prohibited item for export) along with the declared items. The container containing the entire consignment was subsequently seized on 04.03.2016. 2.1. During the course of investigation, Shri Biswadeb Chatterjee, Proprietor of the Appellant Customs Broker was also summoned by DRI officers and his statement was recorded on various dates. The Appellant was questioned in respect of the consignments covered under two shipping bills bearing Shipping Bill Nos. 3134799 dated 05.06.2014 and 3690980 dated 04.07.2014, where the Appellant operated as the Customs Broker. The impugned consignment covered under the above said two shipping bills were in the name of the exporter M/s. Akash Ganga Enterprise (Prop. Shri Manoj Poddar). For export of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g No. DRI/KZU/AS-ENQ13/2016 dated 18.05.2017 was issued in addition to SCN No. DRC/KZU/AS/ENQ-13/2016 dated 26.08.2016 followed by an addendum dated 22.09.2017 was also issued, proposing penalties on various other persons mentioned therein. The Appellant submits that they are no way concerned with the alleged fraudulent export of Red sanders. DRI officers intercepted the Container No. TCKU 2571904 said to contain 740 pieces of 'Accessories of sanitary ware E.W.C. Commodes and Wash Basin' Wares' under Shipping Bill No. 6092170 dated 25.02.2016 in the name of M/s. Srijita Exports and found to contain Red sanders concealed in it. The said Shipping Bill was filed by the CB, M/s. A.K. Sircar & Sons and they had presented the export documents to customs authority on 04.03.2016. The Shipping Bill Nos. 3134799 dated 05.06.2014 and 3690980 dated 04.07.2014 containing items like 'sanitary ware' and 'iron and steel items' was filed by the Appellant CB and the said consignments were presented before the customs officers at N.S. Dock. The Appellant submits that the said consignments were checked and cleared by the customs authorities for export and no mis-declaration was noticed in the said con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....its that the penalty imposed on them under section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 is legally not sustainable and hence the same is liable to be set aside. 3.4. In support of their contentions, the Appellant relied on the decision in the case of Pallab Mitra v Commissioner of CGST & CX, Kolkata [(2024) 22 Centax 383 (Tri-Cal)], wherein under similar facts and circumstances, the penalty imposed on the CB has been set aside. 4. The Ld. A.R. reiterated the findings in the impugned order. 5. Heard both sides and perused the appeal documents. 6. We find that the Appellant has filed this appeal against the penalties imposed on them under Sections 114(i) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. For imposing penalty under section 114(i), it has been alleged that the Appellant has not done proper verification of KYC and not checked the antecedents of the client exporter which has led to the export of consignment of Red Sanders. We find that on the same allegation, separate action has been initiated against the Appellant by way of issue of Notice under the CBLR 2013. The said Notice was adjudicated by the Commissioner of Customs (Airport & Admin) vide Order No. KOL/CUS/AIRPORT/ADMN/09/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... We observe that as a customs broker, the Appellant had neither any authority nor any scope to examine the goods contained in the respective containers before sealing by the Central Excise officer in the factory concerned nor thereafter. We find that the Appellant as CB has performed his job as a customs broker properly by filing the concerned documents with the customs authorities. 7.3. We observe that as a Customs Broker, the Appellant is not required to know Shri Manoj Poddar, proprietor of the exporting firm M/s. Akash Ganga Enterprise personally. The submission of the Appellant is that he has made an informal visit to the office of Akash Ganga Enterprise personally, at 13 A MM Burman Street, Kolkata- 700007 and found that the said M/s. Akash Ganga Enterprise was functioning at the said address. We find that the investigation also has not contradicted this claim of the Appellant. Further, we find that the subject containers were sealed at the factory under Central Excise Lead Seal. We agree with the submission of the Appellant that they had no authority or occasion to examine the materials reportedly contained within the sealed containers which were presented before the cus....