DEVSHI BHANJI KHONA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, COCHIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against Order -in -Original No. 01/2008 dated 16 -1 -2008.

(2.) THE relevant facts that arise for consideration are the appellant herein is a Custom House Agent. The appellant herein filed a bill of entry on behalf of importer M/s. Manoj Enterprises, Bombay. The goods were cleared on payment of customs duty. Subsequent to the clearance of the said goods, there was a suspicion of undervaluation of the goods and hence, demand notice was issued to the importer, M/s. Manoj Enterprises, Bombay directing him to show cause as to why he should not pay the differential duty. Copy of the said notice was endorsed to the current appellant i.e., Custom House Agent (CHA) for information and necessary action. The show cause notice was adjudicated and the value of the consignment was enhanced and accordingly, a differential duty was worked out as payable by importer along with a penalty of Rs. 20,000/ -. This order was also served upon the current appellant as a CHA. The importer preferred an appeal before the CEGAT, Madras and the appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal. It is noted that despite several reminders, M/s. Manoj Enterprises i.e. importer, failed to remit the differential duty confirmed and the penalty imposed. Since no recovery could be effected, a notice under Section 142 of the Customs Act to M/s. Manoj Enterprises was issued for the recovery of the dues through District Collector, Bombay. The said recovery could not be done as the District Collector returned the notice/certificate intimating that the import is not found in the said address. Revenue authorities decided to proceed against the CHA for recovery of the differential duty under the provisions of Section 147(3) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Adjudicating Authority directed the current appellant to pay the duty of Rs. 1,85,994/ - together with 20% interest from 26 -8 -1995 till the actual date of payment. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant moved Honble High Court of Kerala and Honble High Court vide its judgment dated 20 -6 -2007 quashed the order of the Deputy Commissioner and directed the Commissioner of Customs to consider the matter afresh with notice to the appellant and the importer and pass appropriate orders, thereon in accordance with law, after considering the contentions raised by the appellant. The impugned order is passed by the Commissioner of Customs on such direction of the Honble High Court of Kerala.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would submit that the issue is whether the appellant is to be considered as an agent under provisions of Section 147 of the Customs Act, 1962 or not. It is his submission that the appellant herein was a CHA and acted as a Custom House Agent. His duties ended the moment he cleared the consignment and handed it over to the importer. This being the fact, it is his submission that the issue is now squarely covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Aspinwall and Co. v. CCE, Trichy - 2001 (132) E.L.T. 644 (Tri. -Chennai). He also draws support from the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Customs, Cochin v. Trivandrum Rubber Works Ltd. as reported in 1999 (106) E.L.T. 9 (S.C.).