TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (3) TMI 759
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y of Rs. 25,000/- stands imposed on each of the two appellants Shri Boria Ram, Superintendent of Customs and Shri Ashok Kumar Indora, Inspector of Customs under the provisions of Section 114(i) and 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962. In addition, a penalty of Rs. 5 Lakhs stand imposed upon Shri B.N. Gandhi, proprietor of Customs Broker firm M/s. B.N. Gandhi. 2. After hearing both the sides duly represented by Shri BB Sharma, Shri Piyush Kumar and Ms. Neelam Murpana, ld. Advocates for the Appellants and Shri K. Poddar, ld. DR of the Revenue, we find that the matter relates to exports of garments in the name of M/s. Royal Trading and M/s. Classic Enterprises. The shipping bills so filed by the CHA were checked by the Inspector as also by the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....port he has mentioned about the poor/ substandard quality and short quantity of garments against the 20 Shipping Bills under consideration. It is pertinent to mention here that the goods in question were found to be of inferior/ substandard quality and were not fit for being exported as per Market Enquiry and opinion of Textile Committee. I have also gone through the contents of the Panchnama dated 11.05.2015 which has been drawn on the spot by the investigating officer in r/o conducting examination of shipments covered by the impugned 20 Nos of Shipping Bills and drawing of representative sample out of said shipments in the presence of two independent witnesses and Shri Amit Kumar, Representative of CHA and do not find any legal infirmity ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....action on the said appellant. Accordingly, the penalty imposed upon him is set-aside. (ii) Appeal No.C/52976/2016 - SHRI BORIA RAM, SUPERINTENDENT - The Commissioner has imposed penalty on the said Superintendent by observing that he has passed the let export order, which is not a mere formality but has legal requirement to be fulfilled by the Superintendent diligently and the law places a great responsibility on the officer to ensure that the government revenue is not siphoned by such fraudulent means. For better appreciation of the reasons adopted by the adjudicating authority for imposition of penalty, we reproduce the relevant paragraph from the impugned order:- "I find that the above contentions are not acceptable since the noticee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e his said omissions and commissions, he has rendered himself liable for penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962." The said appellant has contended that the let export order was given by him as he found the examination report of the Inspector as satisfactory. Any lapse in performance of duty can, at the most, be considered as inefficiency which will not lead to any charge of abetment or connivance, thus attracting the penal action. We agree with the appellant that dereliction of duty cannot be held to be punishable act in the Customs Act. There is neither any allegation much less any evidence on record that such dereliction of duty is on account of culpable mind. There is no statement of either person to show that the Superinten....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that in fact, all the relevant details of the exporters are still available in the web-site and the findings of the Commissioner are liable to be set-aside. Having gone through the impugned order, we find that the main reason for the adjudicating authority to impose penalty on the said CHA is that, he has failed to follow the provisions of CHA Regulations, 2013 and they have not adhered to the requirements and thus, are guilty of filing the shipping bills, in utter disregard to the provisions, placed on them by the Regulations. If that be so, we are of the view that violation of any of the provisions of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013 would result in revocation of his license, in terms of the said Regulation and in the absen....