2024 (9) TMI 1430 - AT - Customs

Tribunal Upholds Confiscation and Penalties for Prohibited Goods, Emphasizes Employer Liability in Unauthorized Exports.

Shri Krishna Chandra Agrawal Versus Deputy Commissioner of Customs (SIIB) Office of the Commissioner of Customs (Export), New Customs House, IGI Airport, New Delhi

The tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the order-in-appeal that affirmed the order-in-original, which confiscated prohibited goods and imposed ... Smuggling - Confiscation of prohibited goods - red sanders - penalties u/s 114 of the Customs Act - appellant’s case is that although the Airway Bill was filed in the name of his firm through its courier agency Fedex, he is not responsible because it was filed by his employee Brijlal without his authorisation - HELD THAT:- It is a well established legal principle that for any action of the employee, the employer is responsible. It is not the case that Brijlal filed the Airway Bill on his own account or in the name of somebody else. The submission of the appellant that he had not authorised Brijlal to file this Airway bill cannot be accepted. An employee works on the directions of his employer and no employer issues written authorisations to his employee to file every paper or document. It is presumed that the employee worked at the behest of his employer unless the contrary is proved. There is nothing on record to show that Brijlal acted on his own, except the unsubstantiated assertion by the appellant. From the facts of the case, there remains no manner of doubt that the airway bill was filed in the name of the appellant by his employee on his directions and when the consignment was caught, the appellant attempted to shift the blame to his employee. This submission cannot be accepted. Penalty - HELD THAT:- The appellant also contested the quantum of penalty on the ground that if the penalty imposed on him and the penalty imposed on Fedex are added, they would exceed the limit laid down under section 114 of the Customs Act. This submission is erroneous. Section 114 of the Customs Act lays down the penalty imposable on each person and not the sum of penalties imposed on all persons. There are no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The impugned order is upheld - appeal dismissed. Issues:- Appeal against order-in-appeal upholding order-in-original confiscating prohibited goods and imposing penalties under Customs Act.- Responsibility of appellant for goods attempted to be exported without authorization.- Dispute over nature and value of confiscated goods.- Challenge to quantum of penalties imposed.- Interpretation of employer's liability for actions of employees in filing documents.Analysis:The judgment pertains to an appeal challenging an order-in-appeal that upheld the order-in-original confiscating prohibited goods and imposing penalties under the Customs Act. The appellant, a proprietor of an export trading firm, contested the responsibility for goods attempted to be exported without his authorization. The goods, suspected to be red sanders, were seized after a report by the Wildlife Crime Control Bureau. The appellant claimed that his employee, without his knowledge, booked the consignment, and the courier, Fedex, did not declare the goods' quality. The appellant disputed the nature and value of the goods, arguing they were of poor quality and not red sanders. Additionally, he challenged the penalties imposed, contending they exceeded the statutory limit under Section 114 of the Customs Act.The Revenue, represented by an authorized representative, argued that the appellant was fully responsible for the actions of his employees in filing the Airway Bill for export. The appellant's defense that he did not authorize the filing of the Airway Bill was rejected, citing the legal principle that employers are liable for their employees' actions. The tribunal noted that the Airway Bill was filed in the appellant's name, and there was no evidence to support the claim that the employee acted independently. The appellant's attempt to shift blame to his employee was dismissed, emphasizing the employer's presumed knowledge and control over employee actions.Regarding the penalties, the tribunal clarified that Section 114 of the Customs Act prescribes penalties per person, not cumulative penalties. Therefore, the appellant's argument that the combined penalties with Fedex exceeded the statutory limit was deemed incorrect. Ultimately, the tribunal upheld the impugned order, dismissing the appeal and affirming the penalties and confiscation. The judgment underscores the employer's liability for employee actions in official matters and the statutory framework for penalties under the Customs Act.