TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (10) TMI 1137
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Mtrs of Granite slabs to Singapore per vessel M/s. Passat Spring. Intelligence received indicated that a gang of smugglers were attempting to export red sanders stuffed in two containers which were lying in the premises of M/s. Visakha Container Terminal Pvt. Ltd., Vishakhapatnam. In pursuance of the said intelligence, the officers of DRI identified the containers bearing number APZU3456821 in which read sanders was stuffed, and container number APZU3499572 in which the declared cargo i.e. Granite slabs was present. These containers were being attempted to be exported from M/s. Visakha Container under Shipping bill no. 329847 dated 14.06.2014 and 3297689 dated 14.06.2014 respectively both filed by M/s. Velocity Impex, Mumbai. The issue of illegal export of red sanders was being dealt separately and the present notices are limited to the issue of attempting illegal export of granite slabs by misuse of IEC, vide shipping bill no. 32987 dated 14.06.2017 and was stuffed in the container. The said container was detained for further examination. Appeal No. C/51651/2016 3. In pursuance to the intelligence, the gang of smugglers involved in smuggling of red sanders logs were also i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....officer that there was no authorization given to Shri Pandiri Praveen Kumar by the appellant and the appellant has not played any specific role in the instant case. In these circumstances, penalty on the appellant is not imposable in the light of the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Buhariwala Logistics Vs. CC New Delhi 2016 (331) ELT 633 (Tri-Del). Therefore, impugned orders are to be set aside. 7. On the other hand, ld. AR supported the impugned order. 8. Heard both the sides. Considered the submissions. 9. On careful consideration of submissions made by both the sides and on perusal of records, I find that an enquiry officer was appointed for violation of the provisions under Regulation 11(a), 11(d), 11(e), 11(m), 11(n) and 19 of the CBLR 2013 and the enquiry officers gave his report as under: "Summary of Enquiry Report by Assistant Commissioner It has been held by Ld. Enquiry in the Enquiry Report:- i) That Shri Pandiri Praveen Kumar has used the CHA license of M/s. ICS Cargo for export of goods of M/s. Velocity Impex without their knowledge. ii) That Shri Pandiri Praveen Kumar hasn't been issued with any G/H card by Customs Authorities at Vishakhap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppellant was aware of the activities of Mr. G.S. Prince. In this regard, we find that in respect of Appeal Nos. C/58871 & 60232/2013-Cus(DB), the CESTAT allowed the appellant's appeal vide Final Order Nos. 55023-55024, dated 17-12-2014 [2015 (326) E.L.T. 170 (Tribunal)] and set aside the penalties imposed upon it on similar grounds and on the basis of similar evidence. CESTAT in that order came to a finding that there was no evidence to prove the involvement of the appellant, that its employee had suo motu acted for his personal greed and beyond the scope of duty and therefore, the employer (i.e. the appellant) cannot be penalised. Para 12 of the said order is reproduced below :- "12. We find that in the case of Appellant No. 1, no statement of the appellant was recorded. Moreover, during the course of hearing, the appellant has submitted that Shri G.S. Prince is a G card holder and has acted in his own capacity to get the monetary benefits from the business dealings with Shri Sumit Walia and the appellant was not having any knowledge of such importation. We further find that in subsequent proceedings on the same investigation in other imports of car by the same persons on the r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was dropped on the CHA in absence of evidence of the knowledge of the CHA. Further, in the case of S.Y Ranade (supra), it was held that there is no evidence to prove the involvement of the CHA and an employee has suo motu acted for his personal greed and beyond the scope of his duty, therefore the employer, i.e., CHA cannot be penalised. In this case also, it is not in the knowledge of the appellant that Shri G.S. Prince is involved in illegal importer and Shri G.S. Prince acted in his personal capacity for monetary gains. We also find that in subsequent proceedings [agent] Shri G.S. Prince no penalty has been imposed on the appellant. Therefore, we hold that no penalty is imposable on the appellant consequently, we set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant." As regards the judgment of Karnataka High Court cited by ld. Departmental Representative in the case of Clear Fast Services Pvt. Ltd. v. JCC, Bangalore (supra), we find that in that case the High Court merely held that there was no substantial question of law which arose for its examination. Thus, the judgment would not adversely hit the CESTAT Final Order cited above. As regards the judgment of Delhi High Court in the....