9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 1430X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant, proprietor of Krishna Export Trading, Mathura in this appeal. In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order-in-original OIO passed by the Deputy Commissioner and dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant. 2. The facts which lead to the issue of the impugned order are as follows. 3. An airway bill dated 02.08.2012 was filed in the Air Cargo Exports through Fedex courier and it was destined to Hongkong. Suspecting that the consignment was containing some goods prohibited for export, the officers detained the consignment by issuing a Detention Memo dated 03.08.2012 and requested the Wildlife Crime Control Bureau WCCB to submit a report about the wood that was being exported. In its report dated 12.10.2012, WCCB ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he confiscated goods were not red sanders at all and therefore, the appellant requested that the sample may be got tested but this was not done. iv) The so called red sanders was wood of poor quality and it cannot be of value exceeding Rs. 11,700/- v) The appellant had been exporting for the past 10 to 15 years and never attempted to export prohibited goods and therefore, maximum penalty should not be imposed. vi) The red sanders were held to be of the value of Rs. 81,000/-and penalty equal to three times this value was imposed on the appellant and penalty equal to this value was imposed on Fedex. If these are added, it will be four times the value of the confiscated goods whereas Section 114 of the Customs Act provides for maximum pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s firm through its courier agency Fedex, he is not responsible because it was filed by his employee Brijlal without his authorisation. Brijlal and the employee of the Fedex who accepted the consignment must be held responsible. The penalty imposed on him must be set aside. 10. It is a well established legal principle that for any action of the employee, the employer is responsible. It is not the case that Brijlal filed the Airway Bill on his own account or in the name of somebody else. 11. The submission of the appellant that he had not authorised Brijlal to file this Airway bill cannot be accepted. An employee works on the directions of his employer and no employer issues written authorisations to his employee to file every paper or docu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
