Corporate customs house agent penalty set aside where employee liability was not first determined and reasons were inadequate.

Penalty on a corporate customs house agent based on employee conduct cannot be sustained unless the responsible employees are identified and their liability is first determined. Where the notice attributes the alleged misconduct to named employees acting for the company, the penalty order must also set out the specific acts or omissions attributed to the appellant and the reasons why that conduct attracts penalty; a bare assertion of awareness is insufficient. The penalty against the appellant was therefore set aside, and the matter was remitted for fresh disposal of the notice against the appellant and the two employees in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether a penalty could be sustained against a customs house agent when the alleged involvement was through its employees, the liability of those employees was not dealt with, and the order gave no adequate reasons.

Analysis: The alleged misconduct of a corporate customs house agent can arise only through the acts or omissions of identifiable employees. Where the notice itself names individual employees as the persons through whom the company acted, it is not proper to fix the company's penalty without first determining their liability. A penalty order must also disclose the specific acts or omissions attributed to the appellant and the basis on which such conduct attracts penalty; a bare statement that the appellant was aware of the facts is insufficient.

Conclusion: The penalty imposed on the appellant could not be sustained and was set aside. The matter was remitted for disposal of the notice relating to the appellant and the two employees in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Penalty on a corporate intermediary based on employee conduct cannot be imposed without identifying the responsible employees and recording a reasoned finding on the acts or omissions attributed to them.

---