2015 (9) TMI 867 - AT - Customs

Whether penalty can be imposed upon the importer for some misdeeds of the employee of their clearing agent during customs clearance of their imported goods - Held that - Respectfully following the ratio laid down by this Bench 2014 (4) TMI 381 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD , I hold that the present appeal filed by the Revenue is required to be rejected. - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Imposition of penalty on importer for employee's misdeeds during customs clearance.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal dated 2.6.2014. The Authorised Representative for the Revenue argued that the penalty should be imposed on the importer as the employee involved in the forged Challan preparation was acting as an agent of the importer. It was contended that any actions by the agent should be attributed to the importer, necessitating the imposition of a penalty. On the other hand, the respondent's Advocate argued that previous decisions by the Bench favored importers in similar situations and no penalty should be imposed. The issue at hand was whether the importer could be penalized for the actions of their clearing agent's employee during customs clearance. Reference was made to previous case laws to support both arguments.

Upon hearing both parties and examining the case records, the Tribunal considered the issue of penalty imposition on the importer for the employee's misdeeds during customs clearance. The Tribunal referred to previous decisions and observations made by the Bench in similar cases. The Tribunal noted that the importers and their employees should not be penalized for actions that could be attributed to erroneous business diligence rather than intentional wrongdoing. It was emphasized that the importers had paid the customs duty and interest on the imported goods, and therefore, penalizing them was unwarranted. Citing relevant case laws, the Tribunal held that the importers and their employees had made a case for setting aside the penalty imposed on them. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, following the precedent set by previous decisions and observations made by the Bench. The appeal filed by the Revenue was therefore rejected based on the aforementioned considerations.