C/10580/2021 — GOODHOPE CLEARING FORWARDING PVT LTD vs AHMEDABAD

Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Ahmedabad

REGIONAL BENCH- COURT NO.1

Customs Appeal No. 10580 of 2021

(Arising out of Order-in-Original No. AHM-CUSTM-000-COM-013-20-21 dated 21.01.2021 passed by Principal Commissioner of Customs - Ahmedabad)

Goodhope Clearing Forwarding Pvt Ltd. ...Appellant 2, Chruch Lane, 2md Floor, Suit No. 203, Kolkata-West Bengal

VERSUS C.C. – Ahmedabad ...Respondent Custom House, Ahmedabad Gujarat

APPEARANCE: Shri Vikas Mehta, Consultant appeared for the Appellant Smt. Sunita Menon, Superintendent (AR) appeared for the Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL), MR. SOMESH ARORA

FINAL ORDER NO. 11037 /2025 DATE OF HEARING: 11.11.2025 DATE OF DECISION:11.11.2025 SOMESH ARORA

In the instant case, penalty on the CHA has been imposed despite their claim backed by documentary evidence of bill of entry for home consumption backed by check list which was fed into system indicating that despite exemption notification not having been claimed by CHA while filing the documents, Commissioner has made some reference to a dealing agency of the systems who gave a reply that some changes were made in the system on a particular lade which took effect all over India and once that is done this system will not permit benefit of Exemption Notification, unless the same is claimed. We find this is a general statement of which cognizance has been taken by the Commissioner in imposing penalty of Rs. 100000 under Section 112(a) and Rs. 50,000/- for misdeclaring under Section 114AA. The clarification given by the dealing agency is as follows: “2.8.5 During the course of investigation, clarification was sought from the Directorate of Systems, New Delhi. The Directorate of Systems, with regard to updation of Exemption Notification no.55/2018-Cus dated 26/07/2018 in the EDI system, as claimed by NBAPL. In response, DG System office vide letter Ref No. IV (35)/17/2014/753 dated 26/02/2020 clarified that all updation in ICES is done

2 | P a g e C / 1 0 5 8 0 / 2 0 2 1

through the Directory Management Sites and made applicable uniformly at the same date and time at all the EDI locations. Further, based on TRU clarification with regard to calculation of IGST payable on Urea Imports based on the Pool Issue Price issued by Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers. certain amendments in calculation of PIP were made on 15/11/2018 and this Notification was given effect to all Urea falling under Tariff item 32021000. Further as only Fertilizer Marketing Entities are eligible to avail this benefit, revised calculations through Notification necessitated changes in ICEs so as to enable the application of the Notification only when the exemption as stipulated in the Notification was claimed.”

As against this the check list filed by the CHA is at page 80 of the paper book is reproduced below showing that no exemption was claimed.

3 | P a g e C / 1 0 5 8 0 / 2 0 2 1

This substantiates the assertion of the CHA that no such exemption was claimed. In view of the foregoing, the very basis of the department’s finding is not free from doubt and the assertion of the CHA is supported by the documentary evidence, which shift the onus on the department and the same is not discharged properly. In view of the foregoing, this court is inclined to allow the benefit to the CHA by waiving the penalty.
Same is ordered. Appeal of the appellant is allowed.
(Dictated & Pronounced in the open court)

(SOMESH ARORA) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Neha