2006 (5) TMI 229 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Forfeiture of security under Customs House Agent Licensing Regulations, 2004.
2. Liability of Customs House Agent for actions of employees.

Analysis:
1. The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi involved the forfeiture of security of Rs. 60,000 under Regulation 20(1) of the Customs House Agent Licensing Regulations, 2004 imposed by the Commissioner on M/s. Rakesh Kapoor, Cargo Helpers, a Customs House Agent. The Commissioner had dropped the other charges against the appellants. The appellants argued that the penalty should be limited to Rs. 10,000 under Section 117 of the Customs Act.

2. The Revenue contended that an employee of M/s. Rakesh Kapoor, Cargo Helpers, had engaged in misconduct by attempting to clear goods using forged signatures of customs officers. The employee had filed a bill of entry in the name of another entity and obtained gate passes without proper examination. The Revenue argued that since the employee acted on behalf of the Customs House Agent, the agent was responsible for the employee's actions. The Commissioner upheld the forfeiture of security under the regulations.

3. The Tribunal, after considering both sides' arguments, found that the employee, a 'G' Card Holder of M/s. Rakesh Kapoor, Cargo Helpers, had indeed committed misconduct by forging documents and signatures to clear goods. The Tribunal held that the Customs House Agent could not disclaim responsibility for the employee's actions as the employee was authorized to handle customs matters on behalf of the agent. The Tribunal concluded that the Commissioner's decision to forfeit the security was justified under the regulations, emphasizing that the agent had not been penalized beyond the security forfeiture.

4. Ultimately, the Tribunal rejected the appeal, affirming the Commissioner's order of forfeiture of security under the Customs House Agent Licensing Regulations, 2004. The Tribunal emphasized that the employee's actions were not in his personal capacity but were conducted under the authority of the Customs House Agent. The Tribunal found no fault in the Commissioner's decision and upheld the forfeiture of security as a consequence of the employee's misconduct, holding the agent accountable for the actions of its employees in customs matters.