K.I. GEORGE Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, COCHIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant was employed as a Manager with M/s. P. T. Varghese & Sons, CHA. It is alleged against him that he conspired with importer and involved himself in committing certain irregularities in filing the documents. The learned Counsel submits that appellant is innocent in the matter. He has not involved himself in any offence requiring the deposit of penalty in the matter. He submits that there is no evidence against the appellant with regard to the involvement of the appellant in mis -declaration of BMW -325 TD Car. He submits that he has not knowingly abetted in the fraudulent importation of the car by colluding with Shri Alex C. Joseph and Rajan and in obtaining the signature of Shri V. P. Abdul Latheef on all customs clearance forms as alleged in the show cause notice.

(2.) THE learned Counsel submits that the only allegation against him is that he has handed over the car after clearance from Customs to Rajan. He further submits that he has acted in good faith in the capacity of Manager of CHA in clearing the imported car and he dealt with Rajan as per instructions given by the importer viz., Shri. V. P. Abdul Latheef. It is submitted by him that the car was cleared after proper verification of the documents with the Customs Department and on payment of proper amount of duty. He points out to the findings of the original authority, which is concurred to by the appellate authority to the fact that it is not normal for CHA to deal with third parties. He submits that all the necessary papers for clearance of car were signed by the importer Shri V. P. Abdul Latheef and Shri Rajan introduced himself to the appellant as messenger and representing the importer. He submits that there is nothing abnormal in dealing with such representatives. He submits that the clearing agent is an agent of the importer for a limited purpose of clearance of goods. The clearing agent seizes to be an agent of the importer after the clearance of the goods from the Customs Station as held by the Tribunal in the case of D. Sen Gupta v. CC and Ors. reported in 1987 (31) E.L.T. 30 (Cal.). He submits that the finding given by the appellate authority that the appellant acted in the individual capacity is not supported by any evidence. He was only an employee of CHA and he did not have any individual existence. Therefore, the imposition of penalty of Rs. 50,000/ - is not justified.

(3.) THE learned JDR takes us through the findings of the Commissioner. The Commissioner has given a detailed finding with regard to the appellant having acted on behalf of Rajan and not on behalf of the importer. The learned JDR points out that it was the duty of the appellant to have checked all the documents correctly and should not have acted at the stranger behest. As there is a lapse of duty on his part, therefore, having representing the CHA, the penalty imposed on him is justified.