9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (12) TMI 386X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent. [Order per : S.L. Peeran, Member (J)]. This appeal arises from Order-in-Appeal No. 134/2006 dated 19-5-2006 by which the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the Customs House Agent s (CHA) appeal and confirmed the Order-in-Original No. 86/2005 dated 13-9-2005 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Customs imposing penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on him for the charge of his employee having forg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e there is no corroborative evidence on record and hence the penalty cannot be imposed on him. 2. The learned JDR submits that the duty of CHA is to supervise the work of his employees and he is responsible for their action and penalty is imposable. 3. The learned Counsel relied on the Tribunal judgment rendered in the case of High Court of Madras rendered in the case of Mariammal and Ors v. M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct of his employee. Furthermore, Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot be invoked for imposing penalty for an offence committed under separate statute of the Foreign Trade (Regulations) Rules, 1993. Further, Madras High Court in the case of Mariammal Ors. v. M. Ramasubramaniam Ors. has laid down the proposition of vicarious liability. In view of our discussion and the cited judgment, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
