Absence of Mens Rea: CESTAT quashes Penalty imposed on CB [Read Order]
CESTAT quashes penalty on CB in absence of mens rea
![Absence of Mens Rea: CESTAT quashes Penalty imposed on CB [Read Order]](https://www.taxscan.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/CESTAT-CB-Penalty-Customs-Broker-Customs-Excise-and-Service-Tax-Appellate-Tribunal-taxscan.jpg "Absence of Mens Rea: CESTAT quashes Penalty imposed on CB [Read Order]")
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) quashed penalty imposed on Customs Broker ( CB ) in the absence of mens rea. The exporter was alleged to have availed undue benefit under Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS) in the export of safety matches by misclassifying the same under CTH 36050090 as against CTH 36050010, by which the...
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) quashed penalty imposed on Customs Broker ( CB ) in the absence of mens rea.
The exporter was alleged to have availed undue benefit under Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS) in the export of safety matches by misclassifying the same under CTH 36050090 as against CTH 36050010, by which the exporter had availed benefit by way of reward of 7% MEIS as against 3% MEIS. The appellant being the customs broker who had facilitated the filing of documents relating to export on behalf of their exporter client, was alleged to have inter alia violated regulations 10 (d) and 10 (e) of CBLR 2018 and thereafter, a Show Cause Notice was issued to the appellant.
The issue that arises for my consideration is whether the revenue is justified in imposing penalty under CBLR 18 (1) of CBLR 2018 on the appellant.
The Advocate for the appellant submitted at the outset that in a more or less similar case, this very Chennai Bench as in the case of M/s. Max Miller Agencies, Tuticorin Vs. The Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin deleted similar penalty imposed on the customs broker.
A Single Member Bench of P Dinesha, ( Judicial ) observed that “I have gone through both the orders relied upon by the rival parties; in the case of M/s. Seaswan Shipping and Logistics, the issue relates to the penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act and hence, the ratio of said order is not squarely applicable to the facts of this case although the penalty under Section 114 has been upheld on the customs broker for alleged violations therein. In the case of M/s. Max Miller Agencies this Bench has considered an almost similar issue and after considering several judicial pronouncements has found it proper to delete penalty imposed for violations of regulation in 10 (d) and 10 (e).”
To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
