Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Frontier Shipping Agencies Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs (Acc & Export), ... on 5 March, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT No. I APPEAL Nos. C/668 to 673/08-Mum (Arising out of Order-in-Original CAO No. CC(PMS)20/2007-08-ACC dated 26.3.2008 passed by Commissioner of Customs (Export), ACC, Mumbai) For approval and signature: Honble Mr. P.K. Jain, Member (Technical) ======================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the :
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities?
====================================================== Frontier Shipping Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Appellant C.K. Dawar Frontier Shipping Agencies Pvt. Ltd. C.K. Dawar Frontier Shipping Agencies Pvt. Ltd. C.K. Dawar Vs. Commissioner of Customs (ACC & Export), Mumbai Respondent Appearance: Shri C.K. Dawar for appellant Shri M.S. Reddy, Deputy Commissioner (AR), for respondent CORAM: Honble Mr. P.K. Jain, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing: 24.2.2014 Date of Decision: 5.3.2014 ORDER NO
The brief facts of the case are that the first appellant is the CHA and the second appellant is the Managing Director of the said company. Certain unscrupulous exporters exported certain goods by overvaluing and claimed drawback on such overvalued goods. In some cases, the drawback was sanctioned. However, later on, the goods were detained subject to investigation. Some of these export consignments were in the name of the present appellant-CHA. The case of the appellant is that he does not know any of these exporters nor he has handled any export consignments of these exporters. At the time of initial investigation itself, he has produced all of his reports to prove that he has never exported consignments of the present exporter. Someone else has used his name for exporting such consignments. Further investigation led to the fact that the shipping bills had declaration purported to be signed by one Shri Sachin Devgire who was an employee of the appellant-CHA and a G-Card Pass holder. Annexures were in the name and purported to be signed by the said employee. It also appeared that in many of the shipping documents, the signature did not appear to be that of Shri Sachin Devgire. Further investigation led to the fact that one person with the name of Shri Shiv Kumar @ Chotu was handling such consignments and due to an earlier interaction he became close to Shri Sachin Devgire and Chotu has handled all such consignments. It also appeared that at some point of time Shri Sachin Devgire was aware of the fact that some export consignments were being held by Shri Shiv Kumar @ Chotu and he had also signed on the annexures.
2. The main contention of the appellants is that they scrupulously followed all the Customs law and procedure and they do not deal with any undesirable exporters. The consignments in question have not been handled by them as CHA. It was also contended that the said annexures cannot be signed by a G-Card holder and are required to be signed by the CHA himself. Further, some of the shipping bills were in the name of another CHA viz. Sunil Shipping Agency. Even in many of these shipping bills, annexures are purported to be signed by Shri Sachin Devgire. The appellants also contented that immediately when they came to know about the said development, they had dismissed Shri Sachin Devgire from the service and they had co-operated with the department from the day one and what is being stated now was their stand from the beginning. The appellants also contended that in none of the shipping bills covered by the present appeals, even Shri Sachin Devgire has signed and in view of this position also, there is no case for imposing any penalty on them.
3. The learned AR, on the other hand, reiterated the findings of the adjudicating authority and stated that this is a classical case of misuse of the export-friendly procedure followed by the department. It is not denied that Shri Sachin Devgire was an employee of the presents appellant and the present appellants are responsible for all their actions. The appellants cannot wash off the hands with certain things were done by their agent without their permission.
4. I have gone through the rival submissions as also the impugned order. The various contentions advanced by the appellants are not denied in the impugned order. It is observed from the impugned order that from the time of initial investigation itself, Shri C.K. Dawar has clarified that they have never handled the export consignments in question. He had produced various registers detailing various export consignments handled by them and the present exporters were not their clients. It is also observed that the annexures which are purported to be signed by Shri Sachin Devgire are not available and there is no denial that in respect of the shipping bills covered by the present appeals, these are not even signed by Shri Sachin Devgire. It is also noted that Shri Sachin Devgire was only a G-Card Pass holder and he was not authorized to sign such documents. In view of the above position, the appellants cannot be held responsible and penalty cannot be imposed upon them under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962. As far as the second appellant is concerned, investigation has not brought out any role whatsoever and therefore penalty imposed on him is not correct. In the result, all the appeals are allowed.
(Pronounced in Court on 5.3.2014) (P.K. Jain) Member (Technical) tvu 1 5