Customs Appeal No.K-543 of 2001, decided on 12th May, 2004. Versus Customs Appeal No.K-543 of 2001, decided on 12th May, 2004.

1. By this appeal, the appellant, who is a customs agent, has challenged the Order-in-Original No. 12 of 2001, dated 10-1-2001 (so far as it relates to him) passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, Sales Tax and Central Excise (Adjudication-I), Karachi (Mr. Shaukat Ali) imposing penalty of Rs.50,000 upon the appellant, besides penalizing the importer, namely, Messrs. Usman Industries, Lahore, for misdeclaring the description and value of the imported goods.

2. Messrs, Usman Industries imported a consignment of 18.920 metric tons (M.Ts.) paper vide import general manifest (I.G.M.) No.479/2000, dated 17-10-2000, Index No.181, from U.K. and in the Bill of Entry bearing Machine No.04642, dated 28-10-2000, filed through the appellant, declared the description of goods as poster paper and value as 260.00 per metric ton, total 4919.00 equivalent to Rs.411,767 further mentioning the PCT heading as 4802.5100, rate of customs duty as 25% rate of sale tax as 15% and rate of income-tax as 6%.

3. On examination the description of the goods was found as under: --

2. S. No.

3. Description

PCT

4. Quantity

5. Assessed value

6. Total

7. 1.

8. One sided coated paper

9. 4810.1100.

10. 3000 Kgs.

11. $750/M.T

12. $ 2295

13. 2.

14. Glazed, paper 53 grams.

15. 4802.5200

16. 3000 Kgs.

17. $ 800/MT

18. $ 4080

19. 3.

20. Tissue paper

21. 4803.1000

22. 10,000 Kgs.

23. $ 1000/MT

24. $ 10201

25. 4.

26. Both side coated paper 60 grams

27. 4810.1100

28. 1500 Kgs.

29. $ 700/MT

30. $ 1071

31. The total value was assessed at Rs.1,009,491.00 as against declared Rs.411,767.00. Moreover, the goods being of stock-lot quality, their import was banned under the import policy. After giving show cause notice to the importer as well as the customs agent the impugned order was passed under which the importer was found guilty of multiple mis-declarations and a penalty equal to 150% of the assessed value was imposed upon him and the goods were confiscated with option to get them redeemed on payment of fine equal to 15% of the value of the goods in addition to leviable duty and taxes. A penalty of Rs.50,000 was imposed upon the customs agent i.e. the appellant for filing false documents.

4. The appeal filed by the importer bearing No. Cus. 533/2001 was dismissed by this Bench of the Tribunal on 17-6-2002 and his Civil Special Customs Appeal No. 164 of 2002 is said to be pending in the High Court of Sindh.

5. The main contention of Mr. Muhammad Afzal Awan, learned Counsel for the appellant, is that the appellant had no knowledge about the actual description of the goods and he had filed the bill of entry on the basis of customs documents i.e. the invoice and the bill of lading provided to him by the importer. There is nothing to show that the appellant had any knowledge about the actual description of the goods so as to say that he had prepared and filed the bill of entry knowingly on the basis of incorrect documents. Indeed, there is no such finding or even allegation against him. A customs agent is required to prepare the bill of entry correctly on the basis of documents provided to him, which has been done in the present case. He cannot be held responsible for any misdeed of the importer, unless he is shown to be in collusion with him, which is not the case here. Therefore, the imposition of penalty upon the appellant is not proper and the impugned order to that extent is set aside and the appeal is accordingly disposed of as allowed.

6. Inform all concerned.

7. Announced.

32. H.B.T./341/TAX (Trib.) Appeal allowed.