Page 148 - ELT_3rd_1st May 2020_Vol 372_Part

370 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

Communication it was seen that the importer had not declared certain items in
the Bill of Entry. Though the importer had imported rechargeable batteries and
power banks, these were not declared by the importer. Such electronic items are
restricted under Electronics & IT Goods (Requirements of Compulsory Registra-
tion) Order, 2012 and the importer has to produce BIS certificate for importing
such goods. Taking note of the fact that the consignment contained goods which
are not declared in the Bill of Entry, proceedings were initiated against the im-
porter and others. Appellant herein who is the Customs broker was also issued
SCN alleging abetment of concealment of goods/not declaring the goods im-
ported by the importer vide the said Bill of Entry. After due process of law, the
original authority imposed a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh on the appellant under Section
112(a) of Customs Act, 1962, penalty of Rs. 50,000/- under Section 114AA also
penalty of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- respectively with regard to the goods
seized at the godown of Shri Thusindra Gnanaraj who is said to be an accomplice
in the offence. Aggrieved by such order, the appellant filed appeal before the
Commissioner (Appeals) who upheld the same. Hence this appeal.
2. On behalf of the appellant, Ld. Counsel Shri A.K. Jayaraj appeared
and argued the matter. He submitted that appellant is only a Customs Broker
who has filed the Bill of Entry before the Customs authorities. The goods were
declared in the Bill of Entry as informed to him by the importer. Appellant has
no role in the misdeclaration, non-declaration of the goods. The allegation of the
department is that Mr. R.V. Santosh and Mr. V. Janaki Raman who are the em-
ployees of the appellant had only verified the antecedents of the importer by
looking into the DGFT website which gives IEC details and did not make any
attempt to meet the importer. He submitted that after confirmation from the
DGFT website, the appellant filed the Bill of Entry for the said importer. The ap-
pellant therefore has made reasonable effort to know about the importer. The
non-declaration of goods by the importer was not known to the appellant and
appellant has not abetted any offence in any manner. The department has placed
reliance on the statement given by Santosh wherein it is alleged that Santosh had
come to know about misdeclaration in a previous consignment and that the same
was not informed by him to the Customs authorities. The Ld. Counsel argued
that the statement was retracted by issuing the reply to the SCN. Appellant had
requested for cross-examination of the witnesses which was also not granted.
Thus the said statement cannot be relied for implicating the appellant. He relied
upon the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in CC (Imports), Chennai-I
v. Sainul Abideen Neelam - 2014 (300) E.L.T. 342 (Mad.) to argue that statements
made under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 though being acceptable in
evidence may not necessarily be accepted by the authorities in the absence of
further materials to substantiate the contents of the statement. That apart from
the statement department has no evidence to allege that the previous consign-
ment had goods which were not declared by the importer. Further, the said con-
signment was cleared under the supervision of the officers and examination re-
port was also given. Therefore the authenticity of the previous import which is
not at all part of this SCN cannot be the basis for holding against the appellant. It
is also submitted by him that the employees of the appellant, Mr. Santosh and
Mr. Janaki Raman having verified from the DGFT website about the details of

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st May 2020  148