9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Appeal against penalty imposed under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962 for aiding illegal export based on seized goods declared as new but found to be used and damaged gears. Appellant, a Custom House Agent (CHA), challenged penalty imposition claiming lack of awareness regarding misdeclaration in shipping bills filed by ex-employee. Dispute over responsibility for illegal use of customs pass by ex-employee during export. Analysis: The case involved appeals challenging penalties imposed under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962, stemming from seized goods misrepresented as new but found to be used and damaged gears during attempted export. The appellant, a CHA, contested the penalty imposition, asserting ignorance of the misdeclaration in shipping bills filed by an ex-employee, Shri S.N. Dhuri. The appellant argued that Shri Dhuri, who filed the bills without authorization, was not their employee at the time of export, as his customs pass had expired prior to the filing. The appellant emphasized that they were unaware of the misrepresentation and should not be held liable for Shri Dhuri's actions. The Revenue contended that the appellant bore responsibility for the illegal use of the customs pass by Shri Dhuri, who was previously an employee of the appellant. The Revenue highlighted that the appellant had accepted Shri Dhuri as their employee, linking them to the unauthorized actions of Shri Dhuri during the export process. However, the appellant refuted this claim, emphasizing their lack of knowledge and control over Shri Dhuri's actions post-employment. Upon thorough consideration of the submissions and evidence, the Tribunal scrutinized the circumstances surrounding the expired customs pass issued to Shri Dhuri and his employment status during the export. The Tribunal noted that Shri Dhuri was not an employee of the appellant at the time of the export in November 2001, as his customs pass had already expired in July 2001. The Tribunal highlighted the lack of evidence implicating the appellant in the misdeclaration, emphasizing the absence of prior knowledge or involvement in the improper export activities. Ultimately, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, concluding that the penalty imposed under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962 was unsustainable due to the lack of evidence linking the appellant to the misdeclaration. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeals were allowed with any consequential relief. The judgment underscored the importance of substantiated evidence and established employment relationships in determining liability in cases of misdeclaration and illegal export activities.
|
