2026-VIL-85-CESTAT-CHE-CU

CUSTOMS CESTAT Cases

Customs – Section 114(i) of Customs Act, 1962 – Imposition of penalty – Sustainability – On basis of intelligence received, department launched investigation into exports purportedly made by certain exporters – Investigation revealed that there existed no firms in name of said exporters and exports were handled by Appellant/Custom House Agent (CHA) – After due process of law, Commissioner demanded erroneously sanctioned drawback amount from multiple individuals and imposed penalty on Appellant under Section 114(i) of the Act – Whether penalty imposed upon Appellant under Section 114(i) of the Act is sustainable – HELD – There is nothing in this case to show that Appellant knowingly did or omitted to do an act or abetted an act which rendered the export goods liable for confiscation. Even if there was a failure on part of Appellant in fulfilling actions required of him as a CHA, it cannot be construed as abetment of offence. Impugned order clearly indicate that wrongful acts were done by employees of Appellant. Acts of employee done in excess of his authority, which clearly depart from scope of his employment will not make his employer liable for his wrongful acts. Employees acted in their individual capacity and hence, Appellant cannot be blamed for their acts. Department had not succeeded in establishing an offence committed by Appellant under the Act. Penalty imposed on Appellant under Section 114(i) of the Act as per impugned orders cannot sustain and is set aside – Appeals disposed of

Quick Search

/

Create Account



Log In



Forgot Password


Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page



Feedback this page