Page 147 - ELT_3rd_1st May 2020_Vol 372_Part

2020 ] WCI SHIPPING PVT. LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI 369

2020 (372) E.L.T. 369 (Tri. - Chennai)
IN THE CESTAT, SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI
[COURT NO. III]
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (J)
WCI SHIPPING PVT. LTD.
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI
Final Order No. 41187/2019, dated 17-10-2019 in Appeal No. C/41145/2019-SM
Penalty on Customs Broker - Facilitation/Abatement of concealment of
goods/non-declaration of restricted items imported by importer, Allegation of -
Antecedents or whereabouts of importer verified by looking into DGFT web-
site and no attempts made to meet importer in person - HELD : When Ministry
of Commerce granting IE licence exhibited details of IEC holders in Website,
appellant cannot be found fault for accepting same to be true and correct - Al-
so, apart from statement of employees that previous consignment of same im-
porter also comprised of non-declared goods, no evidence on record to doubt
previous consignments - Also, statements retracted and not subjected to cross-
examination - Apart from allegation that appellant ought to have been cau-
tions, no evidence on record to show that appellant had any knowledge of im-
port of undeclared goods - When importer consciously conceals certain facts
from Customs Broker, it cannot be presumed that Customs Broker abetted in
such offence merely because he has not met importer face-to-face - Nothing to
hold that appellant intentionally connived or abetted in non-declaration / con-
cealment of the goods - Impugned order is set aside - Sections 112(a) and
114AA of Customs Act, 1962. [paras 5, 6, 7]
Appeal allowed
CASES CITED
APS Freight & Travels Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner— 2016 (344) E.L.T. 602 (Tribunal)
— Referred ........................................................................................................................................ [Para 2]
Commissioner v. Sainul Abideen Neelam — 2014 (300) E.L.T. 342 (Mad.) — Referred ................. [Para 2]
Commissioner v. Thawerdas Wadhoomal — 2009 (240) E.L.T. A143 (Bom.) — Referred ............. [Para 2]
G.N.D. Cargo Movers v. Commissioner — 2017 (357) E.L.T. 1184 (Tribunal) — Referred ............ [Para 2]
Parvath Shipping Agency v. Commissioner — 2017 (357) E.L.T. 296 (Tribunal) — Referred ....... [Para 2]
Thawerdas Wadhoomal v. Commissioner — 2008 (221) E.L.T. 252 (Tribunal) — Referred .......... [Para 2]
REPRESENTED BY : Shri A.K. Jayaraj, Advocate, for the Appellant.
Ms. K. Komathi, JC (AR), for the Respondent.
[Order]. - The brief facts of the case are that the appellant who is a Cus-
toms Broker filed Bill of Entry dated 12-9-2016 on behalf of the importer M/s.
Greenway Communication for clearance of goods declared as screen guard, bat-
tery cover, mobile rechargeable battery and battery cell. D.R.I gathered specific
intelligence that one Shri Thusindra Gnanaraj was importing electronic goods in
the name of several IECs by resorting to misdeclaration of description, value,
quantity and also importing goods without declaring to Customs in the Bill of
Entry. On examination of the subject consignment imported by M/s. Greenway
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st May 2020  147