TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1221X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Section 113(i) and consequently no penalty is imposable on the appellant-bank under Section 114 - penalty cannot be imposed on the Bank Manager for not taking due caution before opening current account in the name of proprietor and company will not attract penalty under Section 114 - appellant-bank has made out a strong case in their favour for grant of stay - Stay granted. - Appeal C/88608/2013 - - - Dated:- 20-12-2013 - P R Chandrasekharan and Anil Choudhary, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. D.B. Shroff, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. K S Mishra, Kolhapur Addl. Commissioner (AR) JUDGEMENT Per: P.R. Chandrasekharan: The appeal and stay petition are directed against Order-in-Original CAO No: 45/ 2013/CAC/CC (E)/YG/GR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted by the exporter minutely and systematically. In the present case, the exporter, M/s. Sri Balaji Overseas filed documents with the said Bank showing different dates of shipment for the same voyage and the same vessel and Port of discharge and place of delivery were shown as Moscow and Russia respectively and these declarations were accepted and based on the claim of the exporter, the documents were processed and money credited to their accounts. Consequently, the appellant bank failed to protect government money amounting to Rs.3,02,09,760/- inasmuch as they did not properly scrutinize the documents presented to them by M/s. Sri Balaji Overseas, Mumbai for availment of remittance from RBI under Rupee-Rouble Trade and they also fai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Even if it is assumed that there was lapsed on the part of the bank, the lapse, at best can be held as an act of negligence and such lapse cannot be treated as deliberate or intentional. Accordingly, it is contended that the penalty imposed on the bank under Section 114 for an omission on the part of the appellant-bank is not justified. Accordingly, it is prayed that stay be granted against the penalty imposed on the bank. 4. The learned Additional Commissioner (AR) appearing for the Revenue, on the other hand, contends that as per the RBI guidelines vide Circular No. 30 dated 28/09/21993 and Circular No. 4 dated 05/09/1999, it was stipulated that: "Funds from repayments of State Credits to be utilised for export of goods to Russian ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the part of the bank are acts culpable of ignorance and reprehensible imprudence on the part of a banking institution but would fall short of an act/omission rendering the goods liable to confiscation under the provisions of Section 111 as only a person who in relation to any goods does or omits to do any act which act or omission would render such goods liable to confiscation under Section 111 shall be liable to penalty." In the said case, it was further observed by this Tribunal that the frittering away its funds in either disregard of the banking procedures and rules and regulations would not ipso facto make the bank liable for a penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. 6.2 In a similar case pertaining to drawback frau ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
