JUDGMENT :

M.S. Ramesh, N. Anand Venkatesh, JJ.

[PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 130 of the Customs Act, against the Final Order No.40281/2016, dated 16.02.2016 in Appeal No.C/196/2011-SM, passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai.]

This appeal has been filed by the Customs House Agent (hereinafter referred to as 'CHA') under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962, challenging the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal(CESTAT), dated 16.02.2016, confirming the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), dated 28.04.2011.

2. The appellant in his capacity as CHA filed a bill of entry at Tuticorin port on 16.11.2009 on behalf of the importer M/s.I.Tech Imports and Exports, Chennai so as to get used plastic injection mould machines cleared by the customs. The value that was declared by the importer was SGD28500. The customs got the goods value by the Chartered Engineer as SGD44600. On payment of the customs duty, the goods were also duly cleared.

3. On the basis of an information received to the effect that the machines are imported by misdeclaring the country of origin to evade antidumping duty, the office of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence conducted a raid in the office premises of the importer. A case came to be registered for undervaluation against the importer.

4. A show cause notice was issued to the importer and also to the appellant. They were asked to show cause as to why penalty should not be imposed under Sections 112(a) and 114A of the Customs Act for undervaluation and thereby rendering the goods liable to confiscation.

5. The matter was ultimately decided by the Additional Commissioner of Customs and through order dated 31.01.2011, penalty was imposed against the appellant for conniving with the importer in misdeclaring the value of the goods.

6. Aggrieved by the above order, an appeal came to be filed before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) under Section 128 of the Customs Act. While filing this appeal, apart from raising various grounds on merits, the attention of the Commissioner (Appeals) was also drawn to the order passed by the Settlement Commission, dated 09.11.2010 whereby the importer paid the additional amount of customs duty and he was granted immunity from prosecution, fine and penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) passed an order dated 28.04.2011 rejecting the appeal, but however, the penalty was reduced from Rs.3,00,000/- to Rs.2,20,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was filed before the Tribunal and the Tribunal dismissed the appeal through order dated 16.02.2016. Left with no other alternative, the present appeal has been filed before this Court.

7. Heard Mr. Hari Radhakrishnan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. R. Nandha Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent.

8. The following Substantial Questions of Law arise for consideration in this appeal :

(1) Whether the Tribunal went wrong in not rendering any findings on the grounds raised by the appellant and gave findings on issues which did not have any relevance in deciding the appeal and thereby delivered a perverse order?

(2) Whether the order of the Customs and Central Excise Settlement Commission, dated 30.11.2010 granting immunity to the importer from prosecution, fine and penalty, will also enure to the benefit of the appellant and consequently, the appellant will not be liable to pay the penalty?

9. The main ground on which the penalty was imposed against the appellant was that the appellant as CHA has abetted the importer to undervalue the goods and that the appellant had prior knowledge as to the actual value of the imported goods. To come to this conclusion, the Additional Commissioner of Customs as well as the Commissioner (Appeals) relied upon the documents that were seized from the importer which contained two sets of invoices for the same goods. The authority also came to a conclus