The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has upheld the penalty as Custom Brokers attempted to export prohibited goods by exporter.
The appellant, M/s Cargo Specialist Inc. filed airway shipping on behalf of M/s Fashion World-exporter. The goods were declared as Clutch Plates for vehicles, packed in four wooden crates having gross weight of 1271 Kgs. The declared value of the goods was Rs. 2,16,000/-. On examination by the Customs only 80 pcs. of clutch plates were found in the wooden crates and rest were wooden logs, which on further examination by Wildlife Officer, it was found to be red sanders, the export of which is prohibited. Accordingly, the goods were seized.
Vide Order-in-original penalty of Rs. 8 lakhs was imposed on this appellant being the Customs Broker under section 114 of the Act for their act of omission and commission. Being aggrieved, this appellant and other co-notices filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) was pleased to reject the appeals. This Tribunal vide the aforementioned final order after appreciating the evidence and allegations and their defence observed that these appellants have not made profits and/or participated in the profits to be made in the export of prohibited goods. Rather these persons were doing work only on a normal remuneration basis. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed in part by reducing the penalty from Rs. 8 lakhs to Rs. 80,000/-.
The appellant urged that there is no such allegation in relation to the earlier eight consignments either in the show cause notice or in the findings as contained in the impugned order. Secondly, it is urged that the appellant had submitted the IEC code, the address and current bank account number, alongwith PAN card of the exporter which have been found to be correct by the Department during investigation. It is further stated that on one instance, the appellant CHA had an opportunity to look at the goods and the same were found to be in order. Further, the appellant CHA has taken all reasonable care for verifying the identity and address of the exporter. Further, there is no requirement to physically meet or verify. The KYC norm is also required to verify all documents and does not mandate a personal meeting / visit to the business premises of the exporter. Nor is it mandated that the goods should be packed in the presence of the CHA.
The coram of Anil Choudhary had held that it has been rightly concluded in the final order that though this appellant and others have not made any big gain, in the attempted export of the prohibited goods, by the exporter. However, there has been an element of negligence and/or vigilance on their part which has facilitated attempted exports of prohibited goods.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
