9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Penalties imposed on the appellant-company and its director for issuing blank travellers cheques in contravention of the Customs Act. Detailed Analysis: The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai involved penalties imposed on an appellant-company, a full-fledged money changer, and its director for issuing blank travellers cheques. The Commissioner (Appeals) had upheld penalties of Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- on the company and its director, respectively. The issue revolved around the appellants' issuance of blank travellers cheques to a tour and travel operator, which led to the contravention of Section 113 of the Customs Act. During the hearing, the Tribunal addressed the appellants' argument that customs authorities lacked jurisdiction to issue show cause notice and adjudicate against them, citing separate proceedings initiated by the Reserve Bank of India and the Enforcement Directorate. The Tribunal, however, ruled that customs authorities indeed had jurisdiction to issue and adjudicate notices for contravention of the Customs Act, specifically Section 113, which resulted in confiscation and penalties under Section 114. The director of the company admitted to selling the blank travellers cheques in violation of RBI guidelines, leading to the imposition of penalties. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal reduced the penalty imposed on the director to Rs. 10,000/- while setting aside the penalty on the appellant-company. The Tribunal clarified that the director's actions were responsible for the violation of the Customs Act, and no act or omission could be attributed to the company. As a result, appeal No. C/164/08 was allowed entirely, and appeal No. C/165/08 was partially allowed with a reduction in the penalty imposed on the director. In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the importance of adhering to regulatory guidelines and the consequences of non-compliance with the provisions of the Customs Act. The Tribunal's decision to reduce the penalty for the director while setting aside the penalty for the appellant-company underscored the individual responsibility in regulatory violations and the need for businesses to ensure compliance with relevant laws and regulations.
|
