w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



DHL Express (I) Pvt. Ltd V/S CC, New Delhi


Company & Directors' Information:- DHL EXPRESS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U64120MH2001PTC131743

Company & Directors' Information:- A T EXPRESS INDIA LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U93030DL2009PLC193660

Company & Directors' Information:- N R EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U63040WB1999PTC089271

Company & Directors' Information:- P J EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U63040WB1995PTC075515

Company & Directors' Information:- G M S EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U64120KA2006PTC040159

Company & Directors' Information:- U C EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U64120MH2004PTC148038

Company & Directors' Information:- R R EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U97000DL2014PTC267284

Company & Directors' Information:- S F EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U64120DL2015PTC279322

Company & Directors' Information:- J. K. EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U63090GJ2012PTC070288

Company & Directors' Information:- D K G EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U15499UP1982PTC005721

Company & Directors' Information:- P AND G EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U64120MH2003PTC139461

    Appeal No. C/51985/2014-SM (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal Nos. CC(A)Cus/688-689/2013 dated 26.12.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi) and Final Order No. 53837/2017

    Decided On, 07 June 2017

    At, Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal New Delhi

    By, THE HONORABLE JUSTICE: ASHOK K. ARYA
    By, MEMBER

    For Petitioner: Jayant Kumar, Advocate And For Respondents: K. Poddar, D.R.



Judgment Text


1. The appellant viz. DHL Express (I) Pvt. Ltd. is in appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No. 688-689/2013 dated 26.12.2013 whereunder penalty of Rs. 1 lakh and Rs. 20 lakh under Sections 112 and 114AA of the Customs Act have been imposed.

2. The brief facts are that:

(i) The item viz. 'housings' made up of plastic used in electrical industry, which is classified under Customs Tariff Heading 85472000 as insulating fittings of plastics, were imported by the importer viz. M/s. Motherson Sumi Systems Ltd. (M/s. MSSL) by using the services of the appellant, who operates as courier as well as custom house agent/Custom Broker.

(ii) It is alleged by the department that the appellant mis-declared the subject item as connectors under Customs Tariff Chapter Heading 85365090 claiming benefit of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus which exempts connectors from whole of the basic Customs duty.

(iii) The appellant pleads that in the invoice which accompanied the goods imported described the goods as connectors; that is why they declared them as connectors and classified the same under Customs Tariff Heading 85365090.

(iv) The Revenue's stand is that they are not connectors; they are insulated fittings of plastics correctly classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 85472000.

(v) The appellant agreed with the classification of the goods under Customs Tariff Heading 85472000 as insulated fittings of plastics (Housing) and the importer M/s. MSSL, in whose name the goods were imported, paid the differential duty along with interest.

(vi) The department issue Show Cause Notice dated 3.9.2008 to the appellant as well as the importer, which was adjudicated by the order in original No. 32/2009 dated 8.4.2009 whereunder inter alia differential duty of Rs. 3,96,053/- along with interest was confirmed. Penalties of Rs. one lakh was imposed on the importer viz. M/s. MSSL and penalties of Rs. 1 lakh and Rs. 20 lakh under Sections 112 and 114AA of Customs Act were imposed on the appellant assessee.

(vii) The appellant went in appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) who sustained the original order.

(viii) The appellant is now in appeal before the Tribunal against the impugned Order-in-Appeal of Commissioner (Appeals).

3. Both sides represented by ld. Counsels, Shri Jayant Kumar for the appellant and Shri K. Poddar, for the Revenue have been heard.

4. After having carefully considered the facts of the case and submissions of both the sides, it appears that the penalty of Rs. 20 lakhs under Section 114AA of the Customs Act is very high, when the differential duty on account of mis-declaration is of Rs. 3,96,063/-. The appellant along with work of courier is also engaged in clearing the import goods in the capacity of custom broker/CHA. From the facts, it is clear that he omitted to do required due diligence work and committed certain contraventions of Customs law which led to recovery of differential Customs duty of Rs. 3,96,063/- along with i

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

nterest. However, the penalty imposed of Rs. 20 lakh under Section 114AA of the Customs Act is disproportionate to the contraventions done by the appellant. Therefore, the said penalty of Rs. 20 lakh is reduced to Rs. one lakh only. 5. In the result, the impugned order is modified to above effect and appeal partly allowed in above
O R