2016 (8) TMI 874 - AT - Customs

Imposition of penalty - Sec 117 of the Customs Act 1962 export of plastic ball pens export goods examined by appellants not exported no notice issued within time limit for demand of penalty under Sec 155(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 Held that - the protection under section 155(2) is applicable to all legal proceedings. Further, if protection to officers against proceedings in courts can be given, there is no reason why such a protection cannot be given to proceedings before quasi judicial authorities. Also, held that protection under Section 155 of the Customs Act is available even in respect of adjudication proceedings. However, in terms of Section 155(2), in order to initiate any proceedings, the time limit indicated therein should be adhered to. This is held in the case CC & CE Hyderabad-II Vs. Rajiv Kumar Agarwal 2007 (5) TMI 471 - CESTAT, BANGALORE. Thus, provisions of Sec 155(2) of the Customs Act 1962 were not complied with before initiating action against the appellants appeal allowed decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Imposition of penalties under Sec 117 of the Customs Act 1962 on customs officers for negligence in examining export consignments.
2. Compliance with the time limit specified under Sec 155 (2) of the Customs Act 1962 for issuing notices to officers before initiating proceedings.

Analysis:
1. The appeals were filed against the order imposing penalties on customs officers for negligence in examining export consignments. The appellants argued that no notice was issued within the time prescribed under Sec 155 (2) of the Customs Act 1962. They cited case laws to support their argument and highlighted that disciplinary proceedings against the officers were not initiated. The Revenue argued that the goods were not exported to Bangladesh as claimed, and it was the duty of the appellants to ensure the goods crossed the border.

2. The key issue was whether penalties were correctly imposed under Sec 117 of the Customs Act 1962 and if notices were issued within the specified time under Sec 155 (2). The Adjudicating authority did not provide findings on the notice issue. CESTAT Bangalore's decision in a similar case emphasized the importance of adhering to the time limit specified in Sec 155 (2) for initiating proceedings. The Tribunal held that the protection under Section 155 of the Customs Act is available even in adjudication proceedings. The appeals were allowed as there was no compliance with the provisions of Sec 155 (2) before taking action against the appellants.

In conclusion, the appeals were allowed based on the non-compliance with the time limit for issuing notices to the officers as per Sec 155 (2) of the Customs Act 1962. The decision highlighted the significance of following procedural requirements and case laws in adjudication proceedings involving penalties on customs officers.