9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (7) TMI 528X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -2006 through CHA for NI CD Battery. FOB value declared by M/s. ABB Ltd., was Rs. 1.87 lakhs approximately and they claimed drawback on such exports. The said goods were detained by the proper officer, physical examination of goods and documents, such as, check list and other related documents were scrutinized by the authorities. At this stage, it was found that duty the draw back claimed by the exporter was not matching and the total draw back claim of all shipping bill seems to be exaggerated. Based on these, the consignment was seized and investigations were initiated. Statements of various persons were recorded and show cause notices were issued to both the appellants asking them, as to why the export consignment should not be confiscat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... back. It was the submission that while arriving at the amount of drawback, the person unintentionally took the wrong figures for the purpose of claiming drawback. He draws my attention to the various statements recorded by the authorities to show that the whole incident has arisen due to unintentional mistake on the part of the clerk of the CHA. It is his submission that the penalty imposed on the CHA under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, is incorrect as the clerk of the CHA has admitted the mistake due to lack of knowledge as regards the mentioning of the units. It is also the submission of the ld. Advocate that the consignment, which was provisionally exported was confiscated under the provisions of Section 113 of the Customs Act., 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e declaration and the check list, which were submitted to the authorities. It is his submission that actions of the employee are binding of the employer and, hence, penalty imposed on the CHA is correct. 8. Considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. 9. It is undisputed fact that the appellant s declaration as regards the number of batteries and FOB value are correct. The dispute only relates to the quantity of the drawback claim on such exports. It is seen from the records and statements, (which were relied upon by both sides) that the clerk of CHA having noticed the drawback amount being 00 without referring to the exporter or to the CHA filled in the column of the check list and the declaration, the weigh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the allegations were true they could not be held responsible for the act of omission or commission of the staff, who had acted beyond his duty. These contentions of the CHA cannot be accepted, because the act of the employee in his official capacity is binding on the employer. The employer may take departmental disciplinary action against the employee, but cannot be absolved of their responsibility of the misdeclaration in the subject case. In this case the CHA has not taken the proper care in filing the declaration form i.e. Annexure A required to generate the check list from the case records it is evident that against the item No. 123 in the column of quantity of the declaration form they had written 8 4 instead of 1472 and 160 (numb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
