2015 (11) TMI 685 - HC - Customs

Imposition of penalty - Assessee did not carry out physical examination of the shipping bills - Held that - It is seen from the order of the Tribunal that what was alleged against the exporter was that they claimed duty drawback without actually making any export, by getting signatures of the officers pre-dated in the shipping bills. In other words, the proceedings against the exporters were on the basis that the officers had pre-dated the shipping bills. But, the charge against the petitioner was that without physically examining the shipping bills, he made false entries in the shipping bills as though he had physically examined them. Therefore, the charge is completely different from the allegation made against the exporter for cancellation of duty drawback. - no material to interfere with the order - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to dismissal of application by Central Administrative Tribunal upholding penalty of reduction in pay for one year.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the dismissal of his application by the Central Administrative Tribunal, which upheld a penalty of reduction in pay by two stages for one year. The charge against the petitioner was failing to physically examine shipping bills and making false entries. A detailed enquiry found the charge proved, leading to a penalty of reduction in pay. The petitioner denied the charges and objected to the findings. The Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty after considering all aspects. The petitioner filed a statutory appeal and made a representation to the President of India, which was rejected. The Appellate Authority also dismissed the appeal, leading to the petitioner approaching the Central Administrative Tribunal, which also dismissed the application. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a writ petition challenging these orders before the High Court.

The High Court noted that the penalty imposed fell under Rule 11(v) as a reduction in pay, which is a major penalty requiring adherence to specific procedures. The Court observed that the procedure under Rule 14 was followed, and there was no violation of natural justice principles. The Court highlighted that a challenge to the penalty could only be on the ground that the findings were completely perverse and not supported by evidence.

The petitioner argued that the findings were not based on evidence, citing a case where proceedings against an exporter were decided in their favor. However, the Court differentiated the charge against the petitioner from the exporter's case, emphasizing the specific allegations against the petitioner regarding false entries in shipping bills without physical examination.

The Court reviewed the proceedings, noting that the Enquiry Officer provided all details to the petitioner, and various authorities independently examined the case without finding any perversity. Ultimately, the Court found no grounds to interfere with the order and dismissed the writ petition without costs.