ANCHOR LOGISTICS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard Mr. Paresh V. Sheth, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Ms. Amee Yagnik, learned counsel appearing for the respondent in this Tax Appeal. This Tax Appeal has been admitted on the following substantial question of law.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the appellant M/s. Anchor Logistic are Customs House Agent ("CHA" for short). M/s. J.G. Agro Foods, Patiala are exporters of Indian Basmati Rice. The appellant had filed one shipping bill no. 6275647 dated 23-2-2009 for export of 135 MT of Indian Basmati Rice on behalf of M/s. J.G. Agro Foods, Patiala on the basis of the documents supplied by the said exporter and brought the goods for examination before appropriate authority, Customs House, MP & SEZ, Mundra. On 5-3-2009, the said goods were examined and "Let Export Order" was given on 5-3-2009. Thereafter, the cargo was carted to the main godown known as Customs Fleet Station (For short "CFS"), Mundra. Thereafter, the respective formalities were carried out by CFS staff. On 6-3-2009, the Customs Officers of Mundra (MP & SEZ) who were on preventive round found that five containers were stuffed with Non-Basmati rice in bags marked as Indian Basmati Rice. Since the export of Non-Basmati is prohibited by DGFT by Notification No. 93 (RE-207)/2004-09, dated 1-4-2008, therefore, 135 MT of Non-Basmati rice found in five containers valued at Rs. 71,87,400/- were placed under seizure on 6-3-2009 and given in safe custody. The statement of the partner of the appellant and proprietor of the exporter Shri Ankur Jindal and other persons were recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 (For short "Customs Act"), wherein Shri Ankur Jindal agreed that rice seized on 6-3-2009 is Non-Basmati rice which was sent by mistake as detailed in the statement of Shri Ankur Jindal, the authorised signatory of the exporter.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the appellant was a clearing house agent and he had no knowledge about the fact that Non-Basmati rice was being exported. He was under a bona fide belief that exporter was exporting Indian Basmati rice, therefore, he filed one shipping bill dated 23-2-2009 for exporting of 135 MT of Basmati rice. It is further urged that the appellant was also the clearing agent of M/s. Krish Agro Overseas who filed shipping bill for export of Indian Rice Sheila Basmati. This rice was also seized on 6-3-2009. On examination, it was found that it was Non-Basmati rice instead of Basmati rice as declared in the shipping bill. The Tribunal in Appeal No. C/575, 580/2009 arising out of O-I-O No. KDL/COMMR/18/09-10, dated 24-9-2009 decided on 11-10-2010 held in Para 9 as under: