Allowed

Ms Impressive Cargo Logistics, v. Kolkata-Port

CESTAT6 Sept 2024C/75888/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed two appeals challenging penalties of Rs. 75,000 each imposed on a custom broker and its proprietor. The court held that allegations of misdeclaration did not survive as the department had previously allowed export of similar goods found to be old and used. Consequently, penalties were set aside.

What did the court decide?

The penalties of Rs. 75,000 imposed on each appellant were set aside, and the appeals were allowed.

Ms Impressive Cargo Logistics, vs Kolkata-Port — Contract and Commercial Disputes | CESTAT (2024)

¶1

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL EASTERN ZONAL BENCH : KOLKATA

¶2

REGIONAL BENCH – COURT NO. 1

¶3

Customs Appeal No. 75888 of 2024

¶4

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.KOL/CUS(PORT)/KS/109,110/2024 dated 20.02.2024 passed by Commissioner of Customs(Appeals), Kolkata)

¶5

M/s. Impressive Cargo Logistics : Appellant 15, Bompass Road, 3^rd Floor, Kolkata-700 029 VERSUS

¶6

Commissioner of Customs, Kolkata. : Respondent 15/1, Strand Road, Kolkata-700 001.

¶7

With

¶8

Customs Appeal No. 75889 of 2024

¶9

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.KOL/CUS(PORT)/KS/110/2024 dated 20.02.2024 passed by Commissioner of Customs(Appeals), Kolkata)

¶10

Shri Abhijit Basu : Appellant Proprietor of M/s. Impressive Cargo Logistics 15, Bompass Road, 3^rd Floor, Kolkata-700 029

¶11

VERSUS

¶12

Commissioner of Customs, Kolkata. : Respondent 15/1, Strand Road, Kolkata-700 001.

¶13

APPEARANCE:

¶14

Dr. S.K.Mohapatra & Mr. Sudipta Ghosh, Advocates for the Appellant

¶15

Shri Subrata Debnath, Authorized Representative for the Respondent

¶16

CORAM:

¶17

HON’BLE SHRI ASHOK JINDAL, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

¶18

FINAL ORDER NO.77108-77109 / 2024

¶19

DATE OF HEARING :06.09.2024

¶20

DATE OF DECISION:06.09.2024

¶21

¶22

Appeal No.: C/75888 & 75889/2024-DB

¶23

Order : [Per Shri Ashok Jindal]

¶24

The appellants are in appeal against the impugned order wherein penalty of 75,000/- each has been imposed on the main appellant being Custom Broker under Section 114 AA of the Custom Act and its proprietor under Section 114 (iii) of the Customs Act, 1962.

¶25

The facts of the case are that it was alleged against the appellants that the appellants have filed shipping bills on behalf of the exporter M/s. Bagaria Aluminium Alloys Pvt. Ltd. for export and declared the goods as „Part of Section Rolling Mills‟ by claiming reward under RODTEP scheme but on examination, it was found that the goods are rusty and used though specific declaration was not made in any of the export documents.

¶26

In that circumstances, it was alleged that the exporter has misdeclared the goods and the appellant has filed the shipping bills for export of the said goods alleging that they are having the knowledge that the goods in question are “Old and Used Parts of Section Rolling Mill”. Therefore, they have willfully misdeclared the description of goods and value thereof.

¶27

In that circumstance, the Show Cause Notice was issued to the appellants under the Custom Act, 1962 to impose penalties and by the way of impugned order penalties were imposed of Rs. 75000/- on each of the appellants.

¶28

Against the said order, appellants are before

¶29

me.

¶30

¶31

Appeal No.: C/75888 & 75889/2024-DB

¶32

The Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the Custom Broker is a proprietorship concern in the name of M/s. Impressive Cargo Logistics. Therefore, no penalty can be imposed on its proprietor.

¶33

Therefore, penalty imposed on the proprietor, the appellant No. 2 is to be set aside.

¶34

With regard to imposition of penalty on the Custom broker this is his contention that in past also, the appellant had filed the Shipping Bills and goods were tested and found to be “Old and Used Parts of Section Rolling Mills” but were allowed to be exported.

¶35

In that circumstances, as the Department itself is allowing the export of the said goods and did not find any discrepancy therefore, no penalty is imposable.

¶36

On the other hand, Ld. Authorized Representative supported the impugned order. 11. Heard the parties and considered the submission.

¶37

I find that it is a fact on record that in past also the said exporter is declaring the said goods as „Part of Section Rolling Mills‟ which was found actually on examination as „Old and Used parts of Section Rolling Mills‟ and were allowed to be exported.

¶38

In that circumstances allegation of misdeclaration and undervaluation by the appellant does not survive. Therefore, I hold that no penalty is imposable on the appellants. Accordingly, the penalties imposed on the appellants are set aside.

¶39

¶40

Appeal No.: C/75888 & 75889/2024-DB

¶41

In these terms, appeals are allowed.

¶42

(Operative part of the order was pronounced in open

¶43

court)

¶44

(ASHOK JINDAL) MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

¶45

Ms Impressive Cargo Logistics, v. Kolkata-Port

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Impressive Cargo Logistics, v. Kolkata-Port

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Emami Agrotech Ltd. vs -Kolkata(Port)

Kolkata(port) vs Pinder Enterprises

Kolkata(port) vs Pinder Enterprises

Vijay Sons vs Commissioner, Customs-New Delhi

Nirvanza Trading Pvt. Ltd. vs -Commissioner of Customs-Nhava Sheva - III

Cartridge King Pune vs Commissioner of Customs-Nhava Sheva - v

Abhishek Agrawal vs Commissioner, Customs-Patparganj

Brakes India Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Customs-Commissioner of Customs (Iv), Chennai