2003 (12) TMI 517 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Penalty imposition on Custom House Agent under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act for tampering with Bill of Entry.
2. Liability of the appellant for the actions of the clerk.
3. Applicability of precedent in determining penalty imposition on the appellant.

Issue 1: Penalty Imposition on Custom House Agent
The appellant, a Custom House Agent, was aggrieved by the confirmation of a penalty of Rs. 1,000 imposed under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act. The Commissioner noted various instances of tampering in the Bill of Entry, discrepancies in the declaration form, and alterations in the invoice and packing list. The Commissioner rejected the plea of innocence by the appellant and held that the mens rea of the appellant's clerk tampering with the documents was established beyond doubt.

Issue 2: Liability of the Appellant for Clerk's Actions
The counsel for the appellant argued that the clerk, not the appellant, was responsible for the tampering and filing the wrong Bill of Entry. Citing a precedent, the counsel emphasized that for penalty imposition on the appellant, the involvement of specific employees needed to be shown. The Tribunal in a similar case set aside the penalty on the Custom House Agent, highlighting the need to establish individual employee liability. However, the Director of the appellant company admitted to various irregularities and lack of oversight, indicating awareness of the clerk's actions. The Director's knowledge of the discrepancies led to the conclusion that the appellant could not evade responsibility for the clerk's actions.

Issue 3: Applicability of Precedent in Penalty Imposition
The Tribunal distinguished the cited precedent, emphasizing that in the present case, the tampering and discrepancies in the import documents were clearly established. Despite the appellant attributing the discrepancies to the clerk, the Director's admission of oversight and knowledge of the irregularities shifted the liability to the appellant. The Tribunal deemed the penalty imposed as nominal and upheld its decision, dismissing the appeal based on the Director's awareness and involvement in the offenses committed.

In conclusion, the judgment upheld the penalty imposition on the Custom House Agent, emphasizing the Director's knowledge of the irregularities and inability to disassociate from the clerk's actions. The precedent cited was deemed distinguishable due to the clear evidence of tampering and discrepancies, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.