Customs penalty on agent set aside where evidence was inconclusive and no clear proof of misleading clearance communication existed.

Penalty on a customs house agent for the vessel's departure before completion of assessment and examination was held unsustainable where the evidence on departure time was inconclusive. The record did not clearly show that the agent's email informed the vessel that clearance formalities were complete, and the shipping agent was already aware that departure could not occur until those formalities ended. In the absence of a clear finding that the appellant had caused the vessel to leave on a mistaken belief of clearance, the benefit of doubt was extended to the appellant. On those facts, the vessel was not shown to have been rendered liable to confiscation, so penalty could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty imposed on the customs house agent for the vessel leaving port before completion of assessment and examination was sustainable.

Analysis: The departure time of the vessel was disputed, and the record did not conclusively establish that the vessel left because of the e-mail sent by the customs house agent. The communication from the agent did not state that assessment or clearance formalities were completed, and the shipping agent was already aware that the vessel could not leave until such formalities were over. In the absence of a clear finding that the appellant had informed the vessel that clearance was complete, and given the discrepancy in the departure evidence, the benefit of doubt had to be extended to the appellant. On those facts, the appellant could not be said to have rendered the vessel liable to confiscation so as to attract penalty.

Conclusion: The penalty was not sustainable and was set aside in favour of the assessee.

---