9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Confirmation of penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act for tampering with Bill of Entry by a Custom House Agent. Applicability of penalty on the appellant for the acts of the clerk. Director's liability for the irregularities committed by the clerk. Analysis: The appellant, a Custom House Agent, appealed against the confirmation of a penalty of Rs. 1,000 under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act for tampering with the Bill of Entry. The Commissioner found mens rea established in the tampering by the appellant's clerk, noting various discrepancies and unauthorized alterations in the import documents. The Commissioner rejected the appellant's plea of innocence and lack of awareness regarding the clerk's actions. The appellant's counsel argued that the clerk's actions should not lead to penalty imposition on the appellant, citing a judgment by the West Regional Bench. The counsel emphasized that penalties should only be imposed after establishing the involvement of specific employees responsible for the acts or omissions. The Tribunal in the cited case had set aside the penalty on similar grounds, emphasizing the need to attribute acts or omissions to individual employees before penalizing the company. The Departmental Representative highlighted that the appellant's director admitted to certain facts, including lack of knowledge about the importers and unauthorized alterations in the documents. The Department argued that the director's awareness of the irregularities, despite not directly committing them, warranted upholding the penalty as the director allowed the clerk's actions to occur. Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal distinguished the cited judgment, emphasizing that the director's knowledge of the irregularities and failure to prevent them rendered the penalty imposition valid. The Tribunal noted the extensive tampering in the import documents, including erasures and unauthorized alterations, attributing the responsibility to the director due to his awareness of the discrepancies. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the penalty imposed on the appellant, considering the director's complicity in the clerk's actions and rejecting the argument of innocence based on the director's admission of knowledge regarding the irregularities.
|
