2016 (12) TMI 637 - AT - Customs

Imposition of penalty - forged signature of customs officer - Held that - From the observations made by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order, it is evident that the appellant is not connected with preparation of the forged DEPB Scripts and also preparation of the Bills of Entry. Hence in my view, since the involvement of the appellant in the fraudulent activities have not been proved with any tangible evidence, the proceedings initiated against him for imposition of penalty will not be justified. Therefore, penalty imposed in the Adjudication order as well as confirmed in the impugned order is not legal and proper, and as such, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the impugned order - decided in favor of appellant-assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty on an employee of a Clearing House Agent (CHA) for alleged involvement in fraudulent activities related to clearance of imported goods without payment of Customs Duty.

Analysis:
The case involved the imposition of penalties on various individuals, including the appellant, who was an employee of a CHA, for their alleged involvement in clearing imported goods without paying the appropriate Customs Duty. The appellant had filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) against the penalties imposed. The Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the penalty amount to 50% based on certain observations. The main accused individuals did not implicate the appellant in their statements, and it was noted that the appellant was not directly involved in the clearance of goods without payment of duty. The Commissioner (Appeals) acknowledged the appellant's cooperation in providing information that led to the termination of another individual's services. However, the penalty amount was reduced partially due to the appellant's awareness of certain arrangements and sharing of deal money with another individual.

The Member (Judicial) analyzed the Commissioner (Appeals)'s observations and found that there was no concrete evidence linking the appellant to the preparation of forged documents or the fraudulent activities in question. As the appellant's involvement in the fraudulent activities was not proven with tangible evidence, the Member (Judicial) concluded that the penalties imposed on the appellant were not justified. Consequently, the Member (Judicial) set aside the impugned order, ruling that the penalty imposed on the appellant was not legal and proper. Therefore, the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant, and the penalties were revoked.