2005 (10) TMI 159 - AT - Customs

Customs Inspector penalty upheld for false report, emphasizing revenue protection & integrity in customs.

The tribunal upheld the penalty imposed on the Customs Inspector for providing a false examination report, emphasizing the duty to prevent revenue loss ... Penalty on Customs Inspector Issues: Appeal against imposition of penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act for giving false examination report leading to undervaluation of exported goods, contention of rush of work affecting examination, reliance on previous tribunal decisions, challenge against penalty based on evidence collected in a separate investigation, examination of goods not conducted resulting in loss of revenue and undue advantage to exporter.Analysis:1. The appellant, a Customs Inspector, filed an appeal against the penalty imposed under Section 114 of the Customs Act for providing a false examination report on goods declared as readymade garments but found to be old and used garments. The appellant contended that due to a rush of work, he did not examine the goods properly and should only face administrative action under Civil Services Conduct Rules, not under the Customs Act. The appellant also relied on previous tribunal decisions to argue against liability for abetment, emphasizing the lack of evidence showing personal benefit from the export or drawback claimed by the exporter.2. The appellant further challenged the penalty by arguing that the investigation was based on evidence collected from a separate case involving a different exporter, making the penalty unsustainable. However, the tribunal noted that the appellant's duty as a Customs Inspector was to examine goods for export, and in this case, the appellant admitted to not examining the goods before providing a false examination report, leading to undervaluation and potential loss of revenue.3. The tribunal highlighted that the exporter was entitled to a drawback claim of approximately Rs. 38 lakh based on the declared value of readymade garments, which the appellant's false report could have increased, causing loss to the revenue. Despite the appellant's claim of lack of personal benefit or connection to the exporter, evidence showed a link between a third party and the appellant, indicating a potential for favoritism in the examination report.4. Ultimately, the tribunal dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the appellant's duty to provide accurate examination reports to prevent revenue loss and undue advantage to exporters. The tribunal found no merit in the appellant's arguments and upheld the penalty imposed under the Customs Act, highlighting the importance of upholding integrity in customs examinations to safeguard revenue and prevent fraudulent practices.Conclusion: The tribunal upheld the penalty imposed on the Customs Inspector for providing a false examination report, emphasizing the duty to prevent revenue loss and maintain integrity in customs examinations. The decision serves as a reminder of the consequences of negligence or misconduct in customs procedures and the importance of upholding legal standards to protect government revenue and ensure fair trade practices.