9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 1430X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... employer is responsible. It is not the case that Brijlal filed the Airway Bill on his own account or in the name of somebody else. The submission of the appellant that he had not authorised Brijlal to file this Airway bill cannot be accepted. An employee works on the directions of his employer and no employer issues written authorisations to his employee to file every paper or document. It is presumed that the employee worked at the behest of his employer unless the contrary is proved. There is nothing on record to show that Brijlal acted on his own, except the unsubstantiated assertion by the appellant. From the facts of the case, there remains no manner of doubt that the airway bill was filed in the name of the appellant by his employee o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecting that the consignment was containing some goods prohibited for export, the officers detained the consignment by issuing a Detention Memo dated 03.08.2012 and requested the Wildlife Crime Control Bureau WCCB to submit a report about the wood that was being exported. In its report dated 12.10.2012, WCCB reported that the declaration in the Airway Bill (AWB) that it was pine wood was incorrect and it appears to be Red Sanders, the export of which is prohibited under the Foreign Trade Policy. The customs officers seized the consignment under section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 Act under a panchnama dated 16.11.2012 and handed over the consignment to the custodian of the air cargo complex for safe custody. 4. After recording statements an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the value of Rs. 81,000/-and penalty equal to three times this value was imposed on the appellant and penalty equal to this value was imposed on Fedex. If these are added, it will be four times the value of the confiscated goods whereas Section 114 of the Customs Act provides for maximum penalty of only upto 3 times the value of the goods. vii) The appellant can only be responsible for his acts and not for the acts of Brijlal and the employee of Fedex without his consent and knowledge and authorisation. viii) He had not signed the Airway bills as can be seen from the copies enclosed. ix) The appeal may be allowed and the penalty of Rs. 2,43,000 imposed on the appellant may be set aside. Submissions on behalf of the Revenue 7. Learned autho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ody else. 11. The submission of the appellant that he had not authorised Brijlal to file this Airway bill cannot be accepted. An employee works on the directions of his employer and no employer issues written authorisations to his employee to file every paper or document. It is presumed that the employee worked at the behest of his employer unless the contrary is proved. There is nothing on record to show that Brijlal acted on his own, except the unsubstantiated assertion by the appellant. 12. It also needs to be noted that the Airway Bill was filed in the name of the appellant on 03.08.2012 and it was intercepted and was seized on 16.11.2012. In his statement made on 31.01.2013, the appellant said that Brijlal had left the job about two mo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
