2019 (10) TMI 423 - AT - Customs

Imposition of penalty on Custom Broker firm (CB) - failure in exercising supervision of proper conduct of their employee in transaction of business - HELD THAT - The Commissioner in his findings in the impugned order has observed that the action against the appellant has been taken on the basis of the Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of Custom, Nhava Sheva Port - He has further observed that in the absence of any offence report which alleged violation of Regulation 11 (d), (e), (f), there is no basis to decide the same and further, he has also observed that there is no allegation of willful mis-declaration proved against the appellant in the inquiry conducted by the Inquiry Officer. It was not justified on the part of the Commissioner to impose a penalty of ₹ 50,000/- without holding the appellant guilty of violation of Regulation as alleged against him - Penalty do not sustain - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues involved:
Imposition of penalty on the appellant for failure in supervising employee's conduct in business transactions.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Imposition of Penalty
The appellant, a Custom Broker firm, was penalized &8377; 50,000 by the Commissioner of Customs for failing to supervise their employee properly in conducting business transactions. The penalty was imposed based on an Order-in-Original alleging contravention of Custom Broker Licensing Regulation, 2013. The appellant challenged the penalty, arguing that it was unjust as there was no evidence against them, and they had a history of functioning without complaints. The appellant's employee wrongly classified goods under a specific instruction from the importer, despite clearance of similar goods under a different classification by customs authorities at Nhava Sheva Port. The Commissioner's order did not find any willful mis-declaration or non-compliance with Customs Act provisions. The appellant contended that without evidence of willful mis-declaration or non-compliance, the penalty was not justified. The appellant cited relevant case laws to support their argument.

Issue 2: Defense and Counter-Argument
The Assistant Commissioner defended the penalty, stating that the appellant was negligent in supervising their employees, leading to the incorrect classification of goods without proper verification of facts. The Assistant Commissioner's argument was based on the appellant's failure to oversee their employee's actions, resulting in the erroneous classification of goods.

Issue 3: Judicial Analysis and Decision
After considering arguments from both parties and reviewing the evidence, the Hon'ble Member observed that the Commissioner's findings did not establish willful mis-declaration or non-compliance with Customs Act provisions by the appellant. The Commissioner's decision to impose a penalty without proving the alleged violations was deemed unjustified. Consequently, the Hon'ble Member set aside the penalty of &8377; 50,000 imposed on the appellant, granting relief in favor of the appellant due to the lack of evidence supporting the penalty. The decision was pronounced in open court on 30/07/2019.

This detailed analysis of the legal judgment highlights the issues, arguments presented by both parties, judicial scrutiny, and the final decision reached by the Hon'ble Member in the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore.