2025-VIL-1934-CESTAT-CHD-CU

CUSTOMS CESTAT Cases

Customs - Customs agent – Imposition of penalty under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962. The allegation against the Appellant was that he had not verified the credentials of the exporter, not verified the declaration in the Shipping Bills and without obtaining written authorization from the exporter had processed the documents for export of the goods thereby rendering the goods liable for confiscation under Section 113(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 and also liable for penal action under Section 114(iii) of the Act - Whether the penalty imposed on the Appellant M/s. Excel Shipping Services under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962 is justified in the facts of the appeal – HELD - Apart from alleging vaguely that the Appellant had not obtained the exporter's authorization, the investigation could not prove any lapse on the part of the Appellant as the goods being exported under drawback were examined by the officers who allowed the export. The Tribunal noted that at the relevant time, there was no proforma prescribed for obtaining the authorization of the exporter and the exporter in this case obtained the exporter's signature on the Shipping Bills which has to be treated as sufficient compliance of obtaining authorization - The allegation of failure to obtain written authorization from the exporter is not sufficient to impose penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962. Further, the appellant had carried out the verification as expected by any Custom House Agent and the exported goods were examined by the Customs officers. Therefore, the penalty imposed on the Appellant was not justified and set aside – The appeal is allowed

Quick Search

/

Create Account



Log In



Forgot Password


Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page



Feedback this page