"(1) CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL REGIONAL BENCH AT HYDERABAD Division Bench Court – I Customs Appeal No. 2874 of 2012 (Arising out of Order-in-Original No.03/2012-Adjn.(Cus)(Commr) dt.16.07.2012 passed by Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Hyderabad-II) Mavin Clearing & Forwarding Services 21, 1st Floor, RR Towers, Chirag Ali Lane, Abids, Hyderabad – 500 001 ......Appellant VERSUS Commissioner of Customs Hyderabad - Customs Kendriya Shulk Bhavan, LB Stadium Road, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad – 500 004 ……Respondent Appearance Ms Keervani Jukanti, Advocate for the Appellant. Shri Pradeep Saxena & Shri A. Rangadham, ARs for the Respondent. Coram: HON'BLE MR. R. MURALIDHAR (JUDICIAL) HON'BLE MR. A.K. JYOTISHI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) FINAL ORDER No. A/30357/2024 Date of Hearing: 21.08.2024 Date of Decision: 21.08.2024 [Order per: BENCH] The Appellant is providing CHA Services. They have provided export services for M/s RS Exim Corporation, Kurnool. After the consignment was cleared for export, the container was intercepted and was found to be carrying red sanders valued at Rs.53,48,000/-. Subsequently, the Department initiated action against the exporter and the present CHA. After due process, the Adjudicating Authority has absolutely confiscated the red sanders and imposed penalty on various noticees and penalty of Rs.50,000/- on the present Appellant. Being aggrieved, the Appellant is before the Tribunal. 2. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submits that Department has not brought out any specific role played by the Appellant in (2) the alleged smuggling activity. She submits that the goods were cleared after the containers were sealed by the Central Excise/Customs officials. Appellant has taken proper precaution to verify the veracity of the exporter – M/s RS Exim Corporation. Hence, she prays that the penalty imposed under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 is not called for. Accordingly, she prays that the Appeal may be allowed. 3. Learned AR submits that the Appellant has not taken proper care to verify the veracity of the documents produced by the exporter – M/s RS Exim Corporation. Apart from this, the Appellant has organized for movement of the container and trailer, etc. This proves that Appellant has played an active role in the activity. Therefore, he justifies the penalty imposed by the Adjudicating Authority. 4. Heard both sides and perused the Appeal papers and other documents placed before us. 5. We find that, admittedly, the goods were cleared after container was sealed by the Central Excise/Customs officials. The Appellant has taken care to check the veracity of certain documents of M/s RS Exim Corporation. In the SCN or OIO, no specific point is made to the effect that Appellant has played a very active role in the entire transaction. However, the negligence on the part of the Appellant cannot be ruled out since the Appellant has not taken care to verify the antecedents of the exporter before undertaking the transaction. Therefore, we feel that there is a justification in imposing penalty on the Appellant. However, we take the view that penalty of Rs.50,000/- is harsh on the Appellant, in view of the very passive role played by them. Accordingly, we reduce the penalty to Rs.10,000/-. 6. Appeal is thus allowed partly. (Dictated and pronounced in the Open Court) (R. MURALIDHAR) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) (A.K. JYOTISHI) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Veda "