Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2023 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (9) TMI 969 - CESTAT AHMEDABADLevy of penalty on custodian - allegation of clandestine removal - Cosmetics items removed in the guise of Baby diapers - exercise of proper diligence or not - HELD THAT:- There is nothing in the public notice, which required the employees of the ICD/custodian to refer to ICEGATE prior to public notice of 2015. The findings of lower authority to that extent is erroneous and not sustainable - Support found from the conduct of the department which has not issued either a penal or disciplinary SCN to the employees or CFS involved in other two transactions. Even if the committed omission in their case was for one bill of entry, each. The slandered of diligence cannot be different. The number of transactions can be basis for deciding quantum of punishment, if punishment for a lapse is required. Department cannot pick and choose to decide the lack of diligence by number of transactions even when the employee involved in extra diligence believed that “documents not found” was due to some system error or failure. There are no no merits in the impugned order an penalty imposed under Sub-Regulation 8 of Regulation 12 set aside, and it is found that the additional condition imposed by public notice of 2015, itself was procedural improvement under taken by the department through which requirement of referring to the ICEGATE was brought in - the employer cannot be punished for such facts of discretion or extra diligence than prescribed, on the part of employee specially when department did not find anything wrong, when compared to employees of other CFS. Penalty set aside - appeal allowed.
|