P.N. RAM Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD both sides. Appellant filed this appeal against the impugned order, whereby penalty of Rs. 25,000/ - was imposed under Section 14 of the Customs Act. The penalty was imposed on the appellant, as he was working at that time as Inspector of Customs and he has taken the sample of the goods in question which were subsequently found to be mis -declared in respect of valuation to avail the higher draw back. The allegation is that without the direction of superior, he has withdrawn the sample which was subsequently shown to the higher authorities. The allegation is also that when he was directed to make market inquiry in respect of the impugned goods, he did not made any market inquiry and submitted the report on the basis of trade opinion given by un -concerned person showing that the declared value is correct. Subsequently, it was found that the trade opinions were procured and no inquiry was conducted.

(2.) CONTENTION of appellant is that in the show cause notice the allegation against him is that he was negligent and dereliction of duty. The contention is that on the allegation of negligence or dereliction of duty penalty under 114 of Customs Act is not sustainable. The appellant also submitted that the samples were withdrawn at the consignment at the oral direction of superintendent of Customs and which were subsequently placed on the file and shown to the higher authorities. It is also submitted that market authority marked to him and he could not find any person who was dealing with the similar goods, therefore, he requested to his colleague R.K. Saxena, Inspector of Customs who procured the trade opinions which were endorsed by him. Contention is that as per the statement of exporter Sh. Rajesh Sharma alias Sandeep Jain, who is the main person behind the fraud. Sh. R.K. Saxena has to look after the customs clearance and he has to receive Rs. 2.50 lakhs per container. Shri R.K. Saxena in his statement also admitted this fact but the proceedings against R.K. Saxena were dropped in the present impugned order. The contention is that, as there is no allegation against the appellant regarding his omission or commission for consideration to help the exporter, therefore, penalty is not sustainable. The actual person who help the exporter for consideration was R.K. Saxena against whom the proceedings were dropped, in spite of the fact that his statement was corroborated by the exporter. Appellant relied upon the following decision of the Tribunal to submit that for mere dereliction of duty penalty under duty of Customs is not sustainable. Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore v. M. Naushad .

(3.) LEARNED SDR emphasized the findings given by the Commissioner of Customs. He also submitted that as the appellant had not made any market inquiry and endorsed the trade opinions without verification, therefore, rightly penalties under Section 114 of the Customs Act.