JUDGMENT
Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)
1. After dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. 1.00 lakh (Rupees one lakh) on each of the two above-captioned cases, I take up both the appeals for final disposal with the consent of both sides.
2. The appellant is a Customs House Clearing Agent and has filed a shipping bill for two companies for export of readymade garments under claim for drawback. The Customs Officers, on examination, found that the containers instead of having the declared readymade garments, were staffed with old and used garments. Thereafter, the investigations were made and statements of various persons recorded. The appellant’s statement was also recorded, wherein he denied his involvement with the mis-declaration of the goods as regards their description and valuation. Shri M.N. Biswas, learned Consultant for the appellant submits that the appellant had acted bona fide on the information given by the said exporters. There is no involvement of his in the entire episode. Based upon the above facts, show cause notices were issued to the various persons including the appellant. The show cause notices resulted in passing of the impugned Order by the Commissioner of Customs, vide which he h’as imposed personal penalty of Rs. 1.00 lakh (Rupees one lakh) on each of the two cases of the appellant.
3. Shri M.N. Biswas, learned Consultant for the appellant draws my attention to the impugned Order passed by the Commissioner. He also submits that there is no discussion in the said Order as regards the appellant’s involvement in the mis-declaration of the goods as regards their description and value. He submits that under C.H.A. Licensing Regulations, the Customs House Agent Is required to take precaution as regards the correctness of the goods based upon the information given by the exporter or the Importer. In the present case, the CHA has acted accordingly and there is no evidence on record In the shape of the statements of the exporter that the C.H.A. was in knowledge of the fact of mis-declaration of the goods. As such, he submits that the penalty of Rs. 1,00 lakh (Rupees one lakh) imposed upon him in two cases, be set aside. In support of his above submission, he relies upon the Tribunal’s decision in the case World Cargo Movers v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi 2002 (139) ELT 408 (T).
4. Shri T.K. Kar, learned S.D.R. for the Revenue submits that under the C.H.A. Licensing Regulations, a lot of responsibilities have been placed upon the clearing agent who is under an obligation to check and find out the correctness of the declarations made by the exporters. Inasmuch as in the instant cases, the appellant has failed to find out the correctness of the declaration made by the exporters, he has acted Irresponsibly and has exposed himself to the penalty liability.
5. I have considered the submissions made from both sides and have gone through the impugned Order. As rightly contended by the Consultant, the Commissioner has not discussed as to how the appellant who is a Customs House Clearing Agent is involved In the mis-declaration of the goods. Merely because he was acting as a CHA for the exporters, does not, ipso facto, lead to an inevitable conclusion that he was hand In glove with the exporters, especially when there ts no evidence on record to that effect. Neither of the persons was examined by the Customs Authorities during the course of Investigations. The Department has pointed out that the CHA was aiding them and was In the knowledge of the fact that the goods being rags, they had declared the goods as readymade garments instead. I also find that the Tribunal in the case of World Cargo Movers v. CC, New Delhi referred (supra), has held that a CHA can act only in accordance with the instructions of the exporters and it is for the exporters to ensure the correctness of the value declared in the export documents and not for the CHA to compare the invoice price with the market price of Identical goods. I also note that there is no occasion for the CHA to examine the goods before filing the shipping document. As such, I am of the view that Imposition of personal penalty upon the appellant is not justified. The same is accordingly set aside and both the appeals are allowed with consequential reliefs to the appellant. Stay Petitions also get disposed of.