TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 334
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as dismissed the appeal of the Appellant and upheld the Order-in-Original imposing the penalty of Rs.10,00,000/- under Section 112(a)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that: a) M/s Shreyans Appearls & Leatherites, Ludhiana, had filed a Bill of Entry No. 3940459 dated 13.05.2021 through Customs Broker Shri Amandeep Singh Bagri, Ludhiana (F-Card of M/s Mojos Impex International) for clearance of 1120 bags of dry dates having declared assessable value of Rs.19,04,892/-. On 19.05.2021, the examination of the goods was conducted in the presence of Customs Broker and authorized representative of the importer, Sh. Jagjeet Singh (H-Card of M/s Mojos Impex International) and two independent witn....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ited and trade & commerce of cigarettes in India is regulated by the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 ('COTPA, 2003') and related Rules. The import of cigarettes is restricted in terms of General Note 3 to import policy where under the import of cigarettes or any other tobacco product shall be subject to the provisions contained in the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Packaging and Labelling) Amendment Rules, 2018 (as amended from time to time) as notified by the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare. The cigarettes were found without statutory pictorial & Textual warning. Therefore, on such reasonable belief that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law, and binding judicial precedents. 4.1 The learned Counsel further submits that the entire proceedings were initiated and concluded against the Appellant based on allegations of contravening Regulation 10 of the CBLR. He further submits that same allegation had already been adjudicated in prior proceedings by the Commissioner of Customs, Ludhiana vide order dated 15.07.2021, whereby the Commissioner of Customs revoked the suspension of licence of the Appellant by holding that there is no mens rea on the part of the Appellant and no evidence of guilty mind is available on record against the Appellant. He further submits that vide the said order, the conduct of the Appellant was exa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Act and therefore, the penalty under Section 112(a)(i) Customs Act is not legally sustainable. He further submits that there is no allegation or finding in the impugned Order-in- Appeal that the Appellant committed any act, omission or abetment that rendered the goods liable for confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act, and in the absence of such an allegation or finding, the imposition of a penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act is not sustainable as this provision applies only when there is a direct violation that results in goods being subject to confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act. 4.4 In support of his above submissions, the learned Counsel places reliance on the following case-laws: * M/s Sidd....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....roved in a proceeding for revocation of licence of a Customs Broker. In the instant case, I find that there is no corroborative evidence or statement of anybody that the Customs Broker had information, knowledge or has connived in the alleged misdeclaration. The Customs Broker merely acts as a facilitator or agent for carrying out import operations. Thus, it appears that there is no reason to attribute any negligence to the Customs Broker in the instant case. In the present case as well, the Customs Broker has exercised due diligence as all the importers were existing and had valid documents for import. The Customs Broker could not have known about the ingredients of import consignment. It was only on the basis of the documents produced by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pra), wherein the Tribunal, after following the ratio of the decision of Principal Bench in the case of P.S. Bedi & Company vs. CC [2001 (133) ELT 86 (Tri. Del.), has held as under: "10. Further, in the case of P.S. Bedi & Company (supra) this Tribunal again has observed as under:- 5. Considering the submissions, I not that, before proceeding to impose a penalty on the CHA under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, it is incumbent on the Departmental authorities to record a finding in the first instance that some commission or omission of the CHA had rendered the goods confiscable. Such a finding is not forthcoming in the order of the Deputy Commissioner or that of the Commissioner (Appeals). In the absence of such a finding....