2018 (7) TMI 1944 - AT - Customs

Penalty u/s 114 of CA, 1962 - It is alleged that the appellant had abetted/colluded with the exporter, M/s Preetam Marketing Ltd., by contravening the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 and also failed to discharge duty properly as laid down under the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT - The facts and circumstances of the present cases are squarely covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Suvasis Banerjee Others Vs. Commr. of Customs (Prev.), West Bengal 2016 (8) TMI 874 - CESTAT KOLKATA , where it was held that provisions of Sec 155(2) of the Customs Act 1962 were not complied with before initiating action against the appellants - penalty set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Imposition of penalty under Section 114 of Customs Act, 1962 on the appellant.

Analysis:
The appellant, an Inspector of Central Excise and Customs, appealed against the penalty of ?5000 imposed under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Adjudicating Authority found the appellant guilty of abetting/colluding with an exporter, contravening Customs Act provisions, and failing to discharge duties properly. The appellant cited the Central Excise Manual 2013-2014, highlighting the role of Inspectors in specific export schemes. Additionally, the appellant referenced a Tribunal decision in a similar case where penalties were overturned due to procedural lapses. The Tribunal in that case emphasized the requirement of issuing notices within specified time limits under Section 155(2) of the Customs Act, which was not done in the present case. The Tribunal held that the proceedings were time-barred and the acts of the appellant did not render goods liable to confiscation, thus not warranting penalty under Section 114.

The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument that Section 155 of the Customs Act did not apply to adjudication proceedings against Customs Officers. It was noted that protection under this section extends to all legal proceedings, including quasi-judicial authorities. Referring to precedent cases, the Tribunal affirmed that the protection under Section 155 is available even in adjudication proceedings, provided the time limits are adhered to. As the proceedings against the appellant were not initiated within the prescribed time limit, the Commissioner was deemed correct in dropping the case based on limitation grounds. The Tribunal found the appellant's case aligned with the precedent case, leading to the setting aside of the penalty imposed under Section 114, thereby allowing the appellant's appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the penalty imposed under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962. The decision was based on the appellant's case mirroring a previous Tribunal ruling, emphasizing procedural requirements and time limits under Section 155 of the Act. The Tribunal's analysis highlighted the importance of adherence to legal procedures and time constraints in adjudication proceedings involving Customs Officers, ultimately leading to the allowance of the appellant's appeal.