2009 (8) TMI 907 - AT - Customs

Imposition of penalties - no goods were exported and the drawback cases were allowed to the exporter - Held that - the Revenue relied on the Customs Manual to say that the present respondents are the supervisory officers and examination of goods is to be done under their supervision. No doubt, the Customs Manual says so but the allegation in the SCN is that the present respondents marked in the shipping bills to concerned Inspector as the Inspector examined the goods and allowed the same to cross the Border - even in the adjudication order, the only finding is that the supervisory officer cannot escape his liability. There is no evidence on record to show that there is any collusion between the present respondents and the exporter - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Penalties set aside in common impugned order - Liability of Superintendent of Customs - Allegation of collusion with exporter - Customs Manual provisions - Evidence of physical exports - Show-cause notices issued - Adjudication order findings - Allegations against present respondents - Dismissal of appeals.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to appeals filed by the Revenue against a common impugned order setting aside penalties imposed on several individuals. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) had held that no physical exports to Bangladesh had occurred due to connivance with the Superintendent. However, it was noted that the Superintendent's role was limited to giving examination orders and not directly involved in physical examination or export of goods. The lower authority failed to provide evidence of collusion between the Superintendent and the exporter to deceive the government. Consequently, the penalty on the Superintendent was set aside, citing lack of sustainability in law and on facts.

The Revenue contended that as per the Customs Manual, the Superintendent of Customs cannot evade liability if goods were not actually exported. They argued that in this case, evidence indicated no goods were exported, yet drawback cases were allowed, making the respondents liable for penalties. On the other hand, the respondents argued that no show-cause notices were issued to them initially, and they were later included as co-noticees. They maintained that the Inspector of Customs examined the goods marked by them on shipping bills, and there was no evidence of collusion with the exporter. The respondents asserted that the impugned order was rightfully passed based on these grounds.

The judgment noted that while the Customs Manual designates the present respondents as supervisory officers responsible for goods examination, the show-cause notice highlighted that they had marked the shipping bills to the Inspector, who then allowed the goods to cross the border. This crucial fact was emphasized in the notice itself. Additionally, the adjudication order only found that the supervisory officer could not escape liability, without any evidence of collusion with the exporter. Consequently, the judgment found no infirmity in the impugned orders and dismissed all appeals, affirming the decision to set aside the penalties imposed on the respondents.

In conclusion, the judgment carefully analyzed the roles and responsibilities outlined in the Customs Manual, the lack of evidence supporting collusion allegations, the issuance of show-cause notices, and the findings in the adjudication order to determine the liability of the present respondents. By thoroughly examining these aspects, the judgment ultimately upheld the decision to dismiss the appeals and maintain the setting aside of penalties against the respondents.