1995 (10) TMI 142 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
The judgment addresses the issue of penalty imposed on a Customs House Clearing Agent for negligence in examining goods covered under a shipping bill, leading to misdeclaration of contents.

Summary:

Issue 1: Penalty Imposed on Customs House Clearing Agent
The appeal concerned a penalty of Rs. 25,000 levied on a Customs House Clearing Agent for negligence in examining goods covered under a shipping bill, resulting in misdeclaration of contents. The appellant, a long-standing agent, contended that they were misled by a certificate from the Central Silk Board, a statutory authority, endorsing the goods. The adjudicating authority found the appellant guilty of serious negligence but not culpable negligence. The duty of a customs agent to exercise due care and caution was highlighted, as per the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984.

Details:
The appellant, a Customs House Clearing Agent, was penalized for negligence in examining goods sealed by the Central Silk Board, leading to misdeclaration. The appellant's long-standing reputation and the endorsement by the Central Silk Board were cited in defense. The adjudicating authority acknowledged negligence but did not find evidence of mala fide intent or illegal gain. The distinction between negligence per se and culpable negligence was crucial in determining the penalty.

Decision:
Considering the appellant's clean record over two decades and lack of mala fide intent, the penalty was set aside. The Tribunal emphasized the need for greater vigilance by the appellant but deemed a mere admonition sufficient in this case. The judgment highlighted the importance of proper inspection, supervision, and diligence by Customs House Clearing Agents, ultimately letting the appellant off with an admonition due to their clean reputation and lack of prior breaches.

Separate Judgment:
The judgment was delivered by S. Kalyanam, Vice President, without the co-signature of the other Member, raising concerns about the validity of the order as per Rule 26 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. Additionally, discrepancies in the date of the order's typing and signing were noted, indicating an unusual delay before the judgment was finalized.