Commissioner Of Customs vs M/S. Nimit Cargo Movers
- CitationCustoms Appeal No. 50545, 50546, 50547, 51406 of 2014- (SM)
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A penalty under the Customs Act cannot be sustained against a Customs House Agent in the absence of any incriminating material connecting him to the illegal exchange of goods after clearance, where neither the importer nor its authorised representative has implicated him in their statements, so that the Commissioner (Appeals) was right to drop the penalty on him. Where the Commissioner (Appeals) has given plausible reasons for reducing a redemption fine and penalties imposed on other parties, the Tribunal will not interfere with that reduction absent any infirmity in the impugned order, and the Revenue's appeal seeking enhancement must fail.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. CC(A)Cus/ICD/726/2013 dated 31/10/2013 passed by Commissioner of Customs, (Appeals), New Delhi ]
For approval and signature:
Honble Mr Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Commissioner of Customs Appellants
New Delhi (ICD Tkd)
Vs.
M/s. Nimit Cargo Movers Respondent
M/s. Markanda Trading Co.
Shri Gaurav Khurana
Shri Karan Kumar
Appearance:
Shri Rajiv Tondon, AR for the Appellants
Ms Reena Rawat, Advocate for the Respondent
CORAM:
Hon'ble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
Date of Hearing /decision: 12.2.2015
FINAL ORDER NO. A/ /2015-Ex(SM)
Per Ashok Jindal :
Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order for enhancement of Redemption fine on M/s. Markanda Trading Co and for enhancement of penalties on Shri Gaurav Khuarana and Shri Karan Kumar and for dropping the penalty on M/s. Nimit Cargo Movers. The respondents have also filed cross objections to the appeals filed against Markanda Trading Co. and Gaurav Khurana have also filed cross objections along with application for COD.
2. On being satisfied by the reasons for causing delay, the delay in filing the cross objection is condoned by allowing the application for COD. Now, the appeals are taken up for consideration. The brief facts of the case are :
(v) that adjudicating authority passed the following order:
3. The respondent filed appeals against the order before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) who dropped the penalty on N Cargo Ltd. and reduced the redemption fine from Rs.25 lakhs to Rs.5 lakhs on M/s. Markanda Trading Coand penalties on Shri Gaurav Khurana to Rs.5 lakhs and on Shri Karan Kumar to Rs. 15 lakhs. The respondent M/s. Markanda Trading Co. and Shri Gaurav Khurana have also filed cross objection to the appeals filed by the revenue.
4. Learned AR submits that M/s. Nimit Cargo Movers is a CHA and he was involved in the clearance of impugned goods. Therefore, he should be penalized for his act of exchange of goods in the customs area. For others, he submits that as learned Commissioner (Appeals) have reduced the redemption and penalty without giving any plausible reasons, therefore, same are required to be enhanced.
5. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of appellants submits that M/s. Nimit Cargo Movers have no role after clearance of goods and handing over of the same to the importers. Statement of importer and its authorised representative were also recorded and none of them have given any incriminating statement against the CHA. Therefore, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly dropped the penalty on M/s. Nimit Cargo Movers. Learned Counsel further submits that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) after going through the facts of the case have reduced the redemption fine and penalties considering the nature of transaction. In these circumstances, she submits that the appeals are required to be dismissed.
6. Heard the parties. Considered the submissions.
7. In this case, nothing is coming out against M/s. Nimit Cargo Movers after clearance of goods of his involvement in the exchange of goods in the customs area. And the importer and his authorised representative have admitted their own role that for the said exchange. In these circumstances, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly observed as under:
8. I do agree with the observation of the learned Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, I uphold the impugned order qua dropping the penalty on M/s. Nimit Cargo Movers. With regard to the other respondents, I find that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has given plausible reasons for reduction of redemption fine and penalties. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. Same are upheld. In these circumstances, appeals fled by the Revenue are dismissed Cross objections are also disposed of in the same manner.
(operative part of the order pronounced in the open court )
( Ashok Jindal ) Member(Judicial)
ss
??
??
??
??
6
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free