1996 (8) TMI 323 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
- Allegation of filing a Customs Transit Declaration (CTD) with fake documents.
- Imposition of penalty on the appellant.
- Authorization of the appellant by the importer.
- Role and responsibility of the appellant as an employee of the CHA.

Analysis:

The case involved the appellant, an employee of a CHA, who filed a Customs Transit Declaration (CTD) for a consignment of bearings intended for Nepal. However, it was discovered that the Letter of Credit (L.C.) presented by the appellant was fake, as it pertained to a different import. Allegations of connivance and abetment were made against the appellant, resulting in the imposition of a penalty of Rs. 50,000.

The appellant contended that he acted in good faith and to the best of his knowledge, relying on documents provided by the importer's liaison person. The appellant argued that he had no reason to doubt the authenticity of the documents and was not involved in the importation process, which was the responsibility of the Nepalese importer.

The Commissioner's findings highlighted that the appellant acted without proper authorization and declared false information in the CTD. However, the appellant presented evidence of a general authorization from the importer's liaison person to the CHA, which had been used for numerous previous clearances without issue. The appellant maintained that he acted within his authority and filed the CTD in good faith based on the information available to him.

After considering the arguments from both sides, the Tribunal found that the appellant had acted within his authority as an employee of the CHA and had filed the CTD in good faith. The Tribunal concluded that there was no justification for imposing a penalty on the appellant and allowed the appeal, setting aside the penalty of Rs. 50,000. The Tribunal also ordered the refund of the pre-deposit made by the appellant as a consequential relief.