TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 668
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... whereby the appeal filed by the appellant against Order-in-Original No.45/2016 dated 22.03.2016 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin, was rejected. The appellant, a Customs Broker, was imposed a penalty of Rs.2,00,000/- under Section 114(i) read with Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 in connection with an attempted export of red sanders. 2. The facts briefly stated are that the appellant, a Customs Broker, handled Shipping Bill No. 7953846 dated 21.02.2015 filed by M/s. Sam (CBE) Impex for export of "Cotton Tufted Floor Mat" to UAE. The container was granted Let Export Order and, after leaving the CFS, was subsequently examined on 18.03.2015, when it was found to contain 4.030 MT of red sanders valued at about ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... substitution. The appellant contended that an alleged regulatory deficiency in verification could not, by itself, satisfy the requirements of Section 114(i) or Section 117. 3.3 Reliance was placed on International Cargo Services v. Commissioner of Customs (Export), 2015 (323) E.L.T. 206 (Tri.-Del.), as also the other decisions cited in the appeal, to submit that penalty under Section 114 could not be sustained in the absence of evidence connecting the Customs Broker with the fraudulent export. 4.1 The Ld. Authorized Representative Shri N. Satyanarayanan for the Revenue, supported the impugned order and submitted that a Customs Broker carries a substantial responsibility to know the persons for whom Customs documents are filed. The ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed under Section 114(i). Section 114(i) requires an identifiable act, omission or abetment attributable to the person which rendered the goods liable to confiscation under Section 113. Mere involvement in export documentation or a regulatory lapse, by itself, is not sufficient. 8. In the present case, the SCN does not allege that the appellant procured, stuffed or transported the red sanders, participated in their substitution, tampered with the container, or knowingly prepared or filed false documents. The investigation disclosed that the substitution took place after the container had left the CFS, but no material connects the appellant with that operation. 9. On the contrary, the appellant had obtained the exporter's authorisat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Export), 2015 (323) E.L.T. 206 (Tri.-Del.), relied upon by the appellant, is more apposite. In that case, the Tribunal noted that the CHA had obtained proper authorisation, verified the exporter and IEC and other particulars, and that there was no evidence of its knowledge of the fraudulent export; the mere absence of personal contact with the exporter was held insufficient to sustain penalty under Section 114. The present case is substantially similar, as the appellant had obtained authorisation and verified the IEC, while no evidence connects it with the subsequent substitution or attempted export of red sanders. 13. I also find support from M/s. Bhavani Shipping Services (I) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin, 2018....