A.S. GOPINATH Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, COCHIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises from Order -in -Appeal No. 134/2006 dated 19 -5 -2006 by which the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the Customs House Agents (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 forged the shipping bills. The appellant submitted that he had not given any instruction to the employee and he was not in the country and had gone abroad. Furthermore it was pleaded that show cause notice charged the offence under violation of the Foreign Trade (Regulation) Rules, 1993 while penalty has been imposed under Section 117 of the Customs Act for violation of Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. He submitted that for violation of Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, penalty cannot be imposed under Customs Act. He submits that the present appellant could not be held vicariously liable for the act of the employee as that act was beyond the scope of his employment. He submits that there is no statement from the said employee involving the appellant. Therefore 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. Ramasubramanian and Ors. in A.A.O. No. 1420 of 1996 decided on 25 -7 -1997 reported in (1998) IIMLJ199. He specifically pointed to Para 29 to 31 wherein the judgment of Apex Court has referred to the doctorine of liability. He submits that the master will be responsible for the acts of servant only when the master has been authorized and colluded with the servant.