The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi has held that the mere introduction of an actual importer to Importer – Exporter Code (IEC) holder does not attract a penalty under section 112(b) of the Customs Act.
The appellant, Girish Kumar Singh is working as a clearing agent of imported goods but does not have any CHA/CB license. The DRI, based on information regarding the smuggling of cigarettes of foreign origin from Singapore, imposed a penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs upon the appellant alleging that he has facilitated by being a channel between the IEC holder M/s Ankit Enterprises and Habib-uz-Zaman who is the actual importer.
The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal; hence the appellant filed an appeal before the ITAT. The counsel for the appellant submitted that the role of the appellant was only to arrange a meeting between Devi Das, proprietor of M/s Ankit Enterprises, and Habib-uz-Zaman and the appellant neither filed the bill of entry nor was involved in the clearance of goods. Any action on the part of the appellant much before the import of goods could not be made basis to invoke a penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act. The counsel for the appellant by relying on its own decision in Green Port Shipping Agency vs. CC further submitted that no penalty can be imposed without proving the role of the person being charged.
The Coram of Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) observed that none of the co-noticee has stated anything against the appellant except the introduction of the actual importer Habib-uz-Zaman and Badi-uz-Zaman to the IEC holder, who agreed for the use of his IEC on consideration agreed to be provided by Habib-uz-Zaman. Thereafter, there is no role of this appellant in the alleged case of smuggling.
The Tribunal has held that “I find that none of the conditions as stipulated in Section 112(b) of the Act is attracted for imposing the penalty. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal”.
Mr. Rajesh Chhibber and Ms. Tamanna Alam appeared on behalf of the appellant and respondent respectively.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
