2013 (5) TMI 521 - AT - Customs

Imposition of penalty on custom officer - ante-dating shipping bill was received from M/s Amber Exports, export of hand tool under claim of DEPB. The Inspector of Customs examined the goods and placed the examination report before the respondent on 31.3.2000 for countersignature, the same was signed by the respondent on 31.3.2000. Revenue contended examination report was signed by the respondent with mala fide. Held that Following the case of D.R. Ahuja vs. CC, Amritsar 2009 (5) TMI 462 inasmuch as there is no proof of the extraneous consideration for their action and for the imposition of penalty, the penalty imposed upon the said officer was set aside. By following the said decision of the Tribunal in the same respondent case, we find no reason to interfere in the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals). Revenue s appeal is accordingly rejected.

Summary

Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act for aiding and abetting the exporter.
2. Allegation of ante-dating on shipping bill and examination report.
3. Evidence of mala fide or dereliction of duty by the respondent.
4. Application of protection under section 155 of the Act for acts done in good faith.
5. Comparison with a previous Tribunal decision regarding similar facts.

Imposition of Penalty:
The case involved the imposition of a penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act for aiding and abetting the exporter. The respondent, a Superintendent of Customs, was alleged to have signed examination reports and shipping bills before the actual examination of goods took place. The original adjudicating authority imposed a penalty of Rs.20,000, which was appealed by the respondent. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal, leading to the present appeal by the Revenue.

Allegation of Ante-Dating:
The appellant argued that no evidence existed to prove that the shipping bill and examination report were ante-dated. The appellant denied any ante-dating of documents and stated that the signing was done in good faith as part of regular duties. The Adjudicating Authority's adverse inference regarding ante-dating was deemed erroneous and contrary to the facts on record. The appellant contended that the actions were taken based on a bonafide belief in the correctness of the examination reports and shipping bills.

Evidence of Mala Fide or Dereliction of Duty:
The Revenue failed to present evidence of mala fide intentions on the part of the respondent in signing the examination reports. The argument put forth was that any discrepancies might constitute dereliction of duty but not necessarily mala fide actions warranting penal action for aiding and abetting the exporter.

Application of Protection under Section 155:
The appellant sought protection under section 155 of the Act for acts performed in good faith. It was argued that all actions, including signing the shipping bill and examination reports, were conducted in the normal course of duties without any reason to suspect wrongdoing. The Adjudicating Authority's rejection of this plea was challenged, emphasizing the appellant's good faith in carrying out duties.

Comparison with Previous Tribunal Decision:
A previous Tribunal decision in a similar case involving D.R. Ahuja was cited, where the penalty was set aside due to lack of evidence of mala fide intentions or extraneous considerations. The Tribunal observed that negligence of duty was not sufficient for penal action. Following this precedent, the Tribunal in the present case found no reason to interfere with the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision, leading to the rejection of the Revenue's appeal.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues of penalty imposition, ante-dating allegations, lack of evidence of mala fide intentions, the application of protection under the Act, and the comparison with a previous Tribunal decision, providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal intricacies involved in the case.