ORDER:

[PER SHRI K. ANPAZHAKAN]

M/s. Jehovah Logistics, 3D, Port View Tower, 3rd Floor No.-4/38, Krishanan Koli, Street, Chennai – 600 001 (hereinafter referred to as the “appellant”) has filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No. KOL/CUS/PORT/KS/37/2024 dated 10.06.2024 wherein the penalty imposed on the appellant under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962 vide the Order-in-Original No. KOL/CUS/ADC/PORT/EXPORT/92/2023 dated02.08.2023 has been upheld.

2. The facts of the case are that M/s. Ehasanmann Trading Concern has exported readymade garments under four (04) Shipping Bills bearing Nos. 2544644, 2544647, 2544816 and 2546144 all dated 30.11.2015 through their authorized Customs Broker i.e., the appellant herein. On examination of the said consignments, the Officers of the SIB (Port) observed that one item in each Shipping Bill might have been overvalued. Thereafter, it was found that the total declared FOB of the goods in all the four Shipping Bills was Rs.75,56,836/- whereas as per the local market survey conducted, the re-calculated FOB of the goods was Rs.53,00,832/-.

2.1. Accordingly, proceedings were initiated by way of a Show Cause Notice dated 30.03.2022, inter alia alleging that the exporter has overvalued the goods with a view to get excess drawback. The Notice also proposed penalty on the appellant / Customs Broker for allegedly facilitating the over valuation of the export goods for wrongful availment of drawback.

2.2. During adjudication, the ld. adjudicating authority vide the Order-in-Original dated 02.08.2023, inter alia, imposed a penalty of Rs.2,00,000/- on the appellant herein under Section114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962.

2.3. On appeal, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order has upheld the imposition of penalty on the appellant.

2.4. Aggrieved by the imposition of penalty, the appellant has filed the present appeal.

3. The appellant’s contention is that they were in no way concerned with the value declared in the Shipping Bills in question for the purpose of claiming drawback; that it is on record that on examination of the goods, no discrepancy was found on the description of the goods in the shipping bills. If the investigation officers found any over valuation in the goods exported, the responsibility to explain the same is on the exporter. As a Customs Broker, the appellant filed the documents as provided by the exporter. The appellant submits that they cannot be held responsible for the over valuation of export goods. Accordingly, the appellant argued that the penalty imposed on them in this case is legally not sustainable and thus prayed for setting aside the same.

4. The Ld. Authorized Representative of the Revenue appearing before us has reiterated the findings in the impugned order. He thus justified the imposition of penalty on the appellant.

5. Heard both sides and perused the records of the case.

6. In the present case, we find that the appellant, a Customs Broker, has filed four Shipping Bills on behalf of the exporter, namely, M/s. Ehasanmann Trading Concern. On examination of the goods declared for export in the said four shipping bills, the description and quantity of the goods were found to be in order and no discrepancy noticed. This fact has also been recorded by the ld. adjudicating authority at paragraph 3 of the Order-in-Original dated 02.08.2023. We observe that the total declared FOB value of the goods declared in all the four Shipping Bills was Rs.75,56,836/- whereas as per the local market survey conducted, the authorities re-calculated the FOB value of the goods as Rs.53,00,832/-. Thus, the Revenue has taken the view that the FOB value declared was overvalued, on the basis of a market enquiry conducted by the investigating officers.

7. In this regard, we agree with the submission of the appellant that they were in no way concerned with the valuation of the goods in question. If there is an over-