CESTAT Sets Aside Penalty on Freight Forwarder as it Finds No Evidence of Intended Export [Read Order]
The CESTAT noted that �The appellant may be a freight forwarder, but in the absence of any evidence that the goods were to be exported, a penalty could not have been imposed upon the appellant.�
![CESTAT Sets Aside Penalty on Freight Forwarder as it Finds No Evidence of Intended Export [Read Order]](https://www.taxscan.in/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/no-evidence.jpg "CESTAT Sets Aside Penalty on Freight Forwarder as it Finds No Evidence of Intended Export [Read Order]")
The Delhi bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in New Delhi has set aside a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs imposed on the assessee, Saurav Chopra, a freight forwarder, under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962, as the bench found no evidence of intended export. The assessee had approached the CESTAT against the order passed by the Commissioner of...
The Delhi bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in New Delhi has set aside a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs imposed on the assessee, Saurav Chopra, a freight forwarder, under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962, as the bench found no evidence of intended export.
The assessee had approached the CESTAT against the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), which upheld the penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs under Section 114 of the Customs Act by the Joint Commissioner.
Get a Handbook on TDS Including TCS as Amended up to Finance Act 2024, Click Here
Coming to the facts of the case, a show-cause notice was issued on 28-8-2014 to the appellant and six others, including Anil Gadodia and Mayur Ranjan. The notice stated that the assessee had actively participated in a smuggling syndicate by arranging fraudulent exports of red sanders to China. The accusations were based on statements claiming that Chopra had facilitated the transport of consignments totaling over 30 metric tonnes of Red Sanders, some of which were later seized by Hong Kong Customs.
The Joint Commissioner of Customs imposed penalties on all 6 assesses. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this order, and the appellant, who was aggrieved by the above order, approached the CESTAT for relief.
It was submitted by the assessee’s counsel that both Anil Gadodia and Mayur Ranjan had challenged the impugned order before the Tribunal and both the appeals were allowed, in which the bench found no evidence to show that the goods allegedly kept with intention to attempt the export.
How to Compute Income from Salary with Tax Planning, Click Here
CESTAT noted that the department had denied the assessee’s request to cross-examine witnesses, making their statements inadmissible as evidence. The tribunal observed that the seized goods were found in Delhi, far from the Mundra port where the alleged export was to occur, and no shipping bills, invoices, or transport documents were produced to prove intent to export.
Read More: CESTAT sets aside Penalty imposed u/s 114(1) of Customs Act in absence of Evidence
The Tribunal also relied on its earlier rulings in the cases of Anil Gadodia and Mayur Ranjan. The bench further noted that “The appellant may be a freight forwarder, but in the absence of any evidence that the goods were to be exported, a penalty could not have been imposed upon the appellant.”
The CESTAT, comprising Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and Hemambika R. Priya (Technical Member), set aside the impugned order and allowed the assessee’s appeal.
To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscanpremium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
