TRANS GLOBAL LOGISTICS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is a Custom House Agent. One of their employees, who was issued a photo ID Card in Form H as per Regulation 19 (6) of Custom House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004, was found to be not possessing the minimum educational qualification as prescribed under Regulation 19. In fact, from the investigation done, it was seen that the concerned employee by name Shri Deepak Kumar Sharma was having a certificate of having completed 12th class from the Board of Secondary Sanskrit Education, Lucknow. On enquiries made by the Custom House officers, it was found that the Board was not recognized by University Grants Commission. Therefore, a case was made out against the appellant of not having exercised due care while employing the said Mr. Deepak Kumar Sharma and, on adjudication, a penalty of Rs. 50,000/ - has been imposed on him under Section 158(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. Aggrieved by the order, the appellant has filed this appeal. The appellant submits that they were not aware that this particular Board was not recognized by UGC. As soon as the matter was pointed out, his service was terminated. He draws attention to Regulation 19 (1) and Regulation (2) which reads as under: -

(2.) OPPOSING the prayer, Ld. AR for Revenue submits that it is the bounden duty of the CHA to ensure that all the clauses of regulations are complied with. He should have verified that the persons employed by him are possessing the requisite qualification as recognized by the UGC. Since appellant has not complied with this requirement, penalty is to be imposed irrespective of the fact whether they were aware that the Board was recognized or not. He submits that under section 158(2), there is no requirement of any mens rea and penalty should be imposed once violation of regulation is established. Considered arguments on both sides. I find that, in this case, the appellant as well as approving Asst. Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner of Customs have missed to ascertain whether the Board in question was recognized by UGC. Thus, once there is negligence on the part of department also, it is not fair to impose any penalty on the appellant. No other facts leading to revenue leakage or any loss to the State has been pointed out. Therefore, in the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that penalty imposed is not warranted. So I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.