Goods are liable for Confiscation U/Ss 111 and 112 of Customs Act when ‘Improperly Imported’: CESTAT quashes Penalty against CHA [Read Order]

The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai presided by P. Dinesha, Judicial Member held that Section 111 and Section 112 are attracted only when goods are held to be liable for ‘confiscation’ when they are ‘improperly imported goods’: CESTAT removes penalty imposed.

The appeal is filed by the appellant, M/s. Maruvur Arasi Logistics Private Limited who is a Customs House Agent (CHA), against the levy of penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, levied by the Adjudicating Authority. The Counsel for the appellant, S. Baskaran submitted the facts and circumstances denote that it is a case of the Revenue that the importer had availed the benefit of exemption which was not available to the importer and therefore, in the show cause notice issued to the importer and two Customs House Agents, it is alleged that the benefit of exemption was not available to the importer and hence, the CHAs were alleged to be liable for penalty under Section 112 ibid. for failing to comply with Regulations 13(d) and (e) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations (‘CBLR’). In the show-cause notice, it was also proposed for the appropriation of the amount paid voluntarily towards the differential duty and interest.

The Tribunal observed that “Section 111 and Section 112 are attracted only when the goods are held to be liable for ‘confiscation’ when they are ‘improperly imported goods’. Once the Revenue collects duty along with interest, then there remains nothing ‘improper’ about ‘import’ as the import itself becomes a proper import, in which event both these Sections will have no role, since when there is no improper import, then there remains nothing to confiscate.”

To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.