TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 678
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Delhi [the Commissioner] that imposes penalty upon the appellant under section 112(a)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 [the Customs Act] for acts of omission and commission as it failed to discharge statutory obligation and became a party to the misdeclaration and illegal import. 2. The appellant is a customs broker and was issued a licence under the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004 [the 2004 Regulations] Shri Krishan Kumar is a G-Card holder of the appellant. Shri Sanjay Kumar is the Gneneral Manager of the appellant. The allegation against the appellant is that it failed to perform duty and exercise supervision to ensure proper conduct of employees in terms of regulation 19 of the 2004 Regulations and thus was liable to acti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntain proper conduct in transaction of business as an agent of CHA and M/s Cargo Placement & Shipping Agency, the CHA appears to have failed to perform duty to exercise such supervision as may be necessary to ensure the proper conduct of his employees in terms of Regulation 19 of Customs House Agents License Regulations, 2004 and thus liable to action in terms of Regulation 20 of Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004. 80. Shri Sanjay Kumar, GM of M/s Cargo Placement & Shipping Agency in his statement dated 13.03.2010 recorded under Section 108 of Customs Act, 1962 admitted that he has given documents received from Sh. Lokesh Garg and Sh. Manish Jalhotra through Shri Kamal Sehgal to Shri Krishan Kumar G Card holder to fil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....egulation 20 of the 2004 Regulations and the relevant portion is reproduced below : "88. Now, therefore - (a) xxxxx (b) xxxxx (c) xxxxx (d) xxxxx (e) M/s Cargo Placement & Shipping Agency who has appointed Shri Krishan Kumar 'G' Card holder and M/s Continental Cargo Services who has appointed Shri N.K. Singh are called upon to Show Cause to the Commissioner of Customs, Inland Container Depot, Tughlakabad, New Delhi -110020 within 30 days of receipt of this show cause notice as to why action against them should not be taken in terms of Regulation 20 of Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004." 5. It, however, needs to be noted that in paragraph 87(VI) only a statement has ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee has filed 14 Bills of Entry of bogus/ non-existent firms which has resulted in illegal imports of goods. The credentials of these firms were not verified and KYC norms were not followed before filing the documents with the Customs which is one of foremost mandatory conditions/obligations imposed on the noticee. Even though in para 88(e) no imputation has been made under the Customs Act against the noticee. However, there are sufficient evidences on records which clearly establishes the acts of commission and omission of the part of the notice which renders them liable for penal action under section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 as alleged in para 87 (vi) of the show cause notice. Thus the noticee failed to discharge their statutory obliga....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ned counsel also submitted that mere mention of section 112(a)(i) of the Customs Act in paragraph 87(VI) of the show cause notice without indicating why penalty should be imposed upon the appellant under section 112(a)(i) of the Customs Act cannot be made a ground to impose penalty upon the appellant under section 112(a)(i) of the Customs Act. In support of this contention, learned counsel placed reliance upon the decision of Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Customs (Import & General), New Delhi vs Buhariwal Logistics [2016 (332) ELT 278 (Del.)] 8. Shri Mukesh Kumar Shukla, learned authorized representative appearing for the department, however, supported the impugned order and submitted that it does not call for any interference in t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....art of the appellant would render the appellant for penalty under section 112(a)(i) of the Customs Act. Therefore, penalty under section 112(a)(i) of the Customs Act could not have been imposed upon the appellant. 11. This is what was held by the Delhi High Court in Buhariwal Logistics. The Delhi High Court observed that mere violation of the provisions of 2004 Regulations cannot be made a ground to impose penalty under section 112(a)(i) of the Customs Act and relevant paragraph is reproduced below : "18. Mr. Kantawala then referred to the findings recorded in the order-in-original dated 18th July, 2013. The Court finds that in the said order as far as respondent No. 1 is concerned, one reason for justifying the penalty is that ....