SHRI AROKIARAJ Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against Order -in -Original No. 7/2003 dated : 20.06.2003 by which the appellant Shri Arokiaraj, Proprietor of Pentafour Services, Chennai and holder of regular CHA licence has been imposed a penalty of Rs. 2.50 lakhs under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962.

(2.) The appellant in his appeal memorandum has submitted that in the normal course of his job requirement as a CHA he came in contact with one Shri Durai Srinivasan who offered to give clearance documents, posing himself as a businessman dealing in electronics and other consumer goods and running an institute in the name and style of M/s. Sumi supertech to import computer for education purposes. Shri durai brought also some documents for clearance of one M/s. Saravana exports, Chennai of which Sri Kasirajan was the proprietor, Five clearances - three through Chennai Airport and two though Sea were made and goods were delivered to the nominee of the Importers. No irregularities have been noticed in these consignments and the importers have not been initiated with proceedings by the department.

(3.) The present case relates to the re -import of alleged exported goods. At the behest of Shri Durai, Shri Arokiaraj obtained the delivery order from the Airlines Authorities and the moment he came to know that the cargo has been detained by the customs authorities and apprehended problems with this cargo, he returned all the documents to Shri durai srinivasan. For the above incident he was asked to give statements and the first statement was made by Shri Arokiaraj on 4.4.2002 and later appeared whenever he was called. In his statement dated 4.4.2002 Shri Arokiaraj has stated interalia that he had cleared five consignments for M/s. Saravana Exports, three through Chennai Air Cargo complex and two through Chennai Sea Port; that one Durai of M/s. Sumi supertech had given the import documents for these consignments; that he knew durai for the past one year; that Shri durai had told that M/s. Saravana Exports belonged to his friend and had requested him to clear the consignment; that at Air Cargo complex for M/s. Saravana Exports, he had cleared spectacle frames from Hong Kong, automotive parts from singapore and glass beads from Durai; that Shri durai used to pay him all the charges through cash; that Durai had told him that one Kasirajan was the owner of the company; that he had never seen Kasirajan or spoken to him; that the delivery of the cleared goods used to be organised by Durai, and that he had no knowledge where the cleared goods were delivered. Regarding the seized consignment he stated further that he had obtained delivery order on 13.2.2002 but when he came to know about the customs detention of the cargo by the customs authorities he returned the documents to Durai apprehending that there was some problem with the consignment and that he did not have any of copy of these documents pertaining to this consignment. In his appeal memorandum Shri Arokiaraj further submitted on 5.4.2002 that he gave all the documents relating to the clearance of five past clearances and also produced Shri Durai before the Investigating Officers of the Customs who were searching for him to apprehend and take his statements. He, therefore, submitted that he had nothing to hide and it was a normal transaction as a CHA with the representative of the importer.