H.P. Dagha and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Customs - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. heard both sides. the appellants is a licensed custom house agent (cha), who has been imposed a penalty of rs. 1.00 lakh under the provisions of section 112 (a) of the customs act, 1962.2. the bill of entry for clearance of defective cold rolled sheets on behalf of m/s maharashtra tubes ltd was filed. before the goods could be assessed, the importers gave the cha another invoice with the same invoice number but indicated a tower value and an explanation that the quality of goods imported was inferior and hence there was a renegotiated price of $290 p.m.t from $ 410 p.m.t as indicated earlier.cha corrected the value as declared as instructed by the imported in the bill of entry. subsequently, this bill of entry was permitted to be converted into an into bond bill of entry and thereafter again into home consumption bill of entry. the value declaration made was not objected to by the proper officer. the adjudicator found the appellant to be liable for penalty for abating the misdeclaration which rendered the goods liable for confiscation under section 111 (m) of the customs act, 1962.3. the ld consultant for the appellants pleaded for leniency and submitted that the amendments were made a." the behest of the principals i.e. the importers and the agent was not liable for the misdeclaration. misdeclaration, if any, and liability thereof would be on the importers, since the agent was only functioning as per instructions of the importers, there can be no change of abatement liability, as arrived at by the adjudicator. he also submitted that the cha has been penalised under the regulations separately for the very said act.4. the ld d.r. however submits that the misdeclaration effected by the cha has led to misleading the proper officers in arriving at an incorrect assessment and the liability as arrived at should be upheld.5. considering the submissions made and the materials on record, we would uphold the liability for penalty on the appellant herein for rendering the goods liable for confiscation under section 111 (m) of the customs act, 1962. however, taking into consideration that he has already been penalised under the regulations, we would reduce the penalty from rs. 1.00 lakh to rs. 50,000/-.

Judgment:
1. Heard both sides. The appellants is a licensed Custom House Agent (CHA), who has been imposed a penalty of Rs. 1.00 lakh under the provisions of Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962.

2. The Bill of Entry for clearance of defective Cold rolled sheets on behalf of M/s Maharashtra Tubes Ltd was filed. Before the goods could be assessed, the importers gave the CHA another invoice with the same invoice number but indicated a tower value and an explanation that the quality of goods imported was inferior and hence there was a renegotiated price of $290 p.m.t from $ 410 p.m.t as indicated earlier.

CHA corrected the value as declared as instructed by the imported in the Bill of Entry. Subsequently, this Bill of Entry was permitted to be converted into an Into Bond Bill of Entry and thereafter again into home consumption Bill of Entry. The value declaration made was not objected to by the proper officer. The adjudicator found the appellant to be liable for penalty for abating the misdeclaration which rendered the goods liable for confiscation under Section 111 (m) of the Customs Act, 1962.

3. The Ld Consultant for the appellants pleaded for leniency and submitted that the amendments were made a." the behest of the principals i.e. the importers and the agent was not liable for the misdeclaration. Misdeclaration, if any, and liability thereof would be on the importers, since the agent was only functioning as per instructions of the importers, there can be no change of abatement liability, as arrived at by the adjudicator. He also submitted that the CHA has been penalised under the Regulations separately for the very said act.

4. The Ld D.R. however submits that the misdeclaration effected by the CHA has led to misleading the proper officers in arriving at an incorrect assessment and the liability as arrived at should be upheld.5. Considering the submissions made and the materials on record, we would uphold the liability for penalty on the appellant herein for rendering the goods liable for confiscation under Section 111 (m) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, taking into consideration that he has already been penalised under the Regulations, we would reduce the penalty from Rs. 1.00 lakh to Rs. 50,000/-.