Date of Order: 27.10.2022

Facts:

• The appellant, M/s. Caravel Logistics Private Limited, who is a steamer agent filed IGM in relation to import of Aluminium Scrap vide Bill-of-Entry dated 24.05.2011. The said consignment had remained uncleared, for which reason the Custodian had issued a notice dated 05.03.2011 under Section 48 ibid.
• The goods were examined and valued by a Government approved valuer appointed by the Custodian, in the presence of Customs Officials and also examined by the Preventive Officer posted at the CFS on 12.11.2012 wherein the goods were found to be Aluminium Scrap.
• A Show Cause Notice under Section 124 was issued on both the importer as well as the appellant, proposing to confiscate the goods in question apart from proposing to impose penalty under Section 112(a) / 117 ibid.
• The appellant filed a detailed reply and thereafter, Order-in-Original No. 80781/2021 dated 08.03.2021 was passed whereby the impugned goods were absolutely confiscated and a penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- was imposed on the appellant.

Issue:

• Whether the penalty imposed on the appellant under section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 is justified.

Order:

• The authorities observed that the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) dated 08.04.2005 requires, in paragraph 2.32, in the case of import in the form of metallic waste, scrap, etc., referred to therein, the furnishing of pre-shipment inspection certificate at the time of clearance of goods.
• Handbook of Procedures (Vol. I) with effect from 23.08.2010 (2009-14) also mandates the furnishing of pre-shipment inspection certificate at the time of clearance of goods, in paragraph 2.32.2.
• The authorities observed that the pre-shipment inspection certificate, as required, is to be furnished at the time of clearance of the goods by an importer and hence, any other person including a Steamer Agent has no locus to meet the above requirement.
• The authorities observed that Revenue has not whispered anywhere if it was the duty of the Steamer Agent to seek clearance of any goods since it is the importer who is required to fulfil any obligations at the time of clearance of goods.
• The penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, as levied and confirmed on the appellant, is not sustainable, for which reason the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.