Case Details: Evergreen Shippng Agency India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs (Export), New Delhi (2025) 33 Centax 41 (Tri.-Del)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
-
S/Shri G.K. Sarkar and Prashant Shrivastava, Advs., for the Appellant.
-
Shri Rakesh Kumar, Authorised Representative, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The appellant, being a shipping line operator, was subjected to adjudication proceedings initiated by the Department for imposition of penalties under Sections 114(iii) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. The basis of the allegations was that the shipping line had discharged export containers at a UAE port instead of Panama, as declared in the Shipping Bills, thereby allegedly assisting the exporter in fraudulently availing benefits under the Focus Market Scheme (FMS) despite not exporting goods to a notified destination. The Department further alleged that the appellant had failed to amend the Export General Manifest to reflect the actual port of discharge and had issued a landing certificate that was used to substantiate the export claim. Goods were confiscated under Section 113, and penalties were proposed under Sections 114(iii) and 114AA. The appellant rebutted the allegations, asserting the absence of any knowledge or intent to commit or abet any irregularity, and pointed out that the Shipping Bills relating to the consignments handled by it had not been tampered with or fraudulently amended. Upon setting aside the confiscation, the matter was placed before CESTAT.
High Court Held
The CESTAT held that penalty under Section 114(iii) could not be sustained in the absence of confiscation, which had already been set aside by the adjudicating authority. It further observed that imposition of penalty under Section 114AA necessitated proof of knowledge and intention, which the Department had failed to establish against the appellant. In the absence of such foundational evidence, no penal consequence could be fastened upon the shipping line. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the penalty proceedings were quashed in favour of the appellant.
