2015 (9) TMI 397 - HC - Customs

Issue of certificate Supply of Forged documents Vide impugned order tribunal forfeited/penalty sum as imposed for violation of Regulation 19(1) and 19(8) of Customs House Agent Licensing Regulation, 2004 Employee of respondent company who applied to Customs Authorities for issue of H Card had enclosed forged documents with application Held that - appellant authorities accepted and believed that certificate was genuine and validly issued certificate which was accepted by respondent employer There was no allegation that there was collusion or respondent employer was aware that certificate was forged and fabricated No substantial question of law arises for consideration Not inclined to issue notice on application for condonation of delay Appeal dismissed Decided against revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in filing the appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Quashing of penalty/forfeiture for violation of Customs House Agent Licensing Regulation, 2004 based on a forged certificate.
3. Tribunal's finding on the acceptance of the forged certificate by the respondent company and Customs authorities.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was delayed by 52 days, prompting an application for delay. The court first assessed if it was appropriate to interfere under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962, before considering the delay application. The impugned order quashed a penalty of &8377;40,000 for violating Customs House Agent Licensing Regulation, 2004. The respondent employed an individual who submitted a forged certificate to obtain an H Card from Customs Authorities.

2. Subsequently, it was discovered that the certificate was forged, as confirmed by the National Open School. The Tribunal found that the respondent company accepted the certificate as genuine, believing it to be issued by the National Open School. The Customs authorities also accepted the certificate's authenticity based on the respondent's submission before issuing the H Card.

3. The Tribunal's factual finding indicated no collusion or awareness by the respondent that the certificate was forged. The amount involved was only &8377;40,000, and as no substantial question of law arose due to the factual nature of the Tribunal's decision, the court dismissed the appeal and the delay application. The court declined to issue notice for condonation of delay, given the circumstances and the lack of legal questions for consideration.