Full Judgment
2. The reasons by which Collector has established abetment are that the appellant undertook to clear the goods as a custom house agent without obtaining written authority from the importer as prescribed in Regulation 14 of the Custom House Agents Regulation Act, 1984. It handed over bonds on behalf of the importer without signatures and clear address and filed wrong declaration on value.
2. The contention of the advocate for the appellant that failure to obtain a written authority cannot by itself justify a finding of abetment in the undervaluation of the goods is to be accepted. It is not in dispute that Wadhwa and Nanda engaged the appellant. The failure to obtain a written authority may invite action under the licensing regulations but that by itself is not enough to establish knowledge or participation by the appellant in the in misdeclaration of value.
3. We do not see how there could be any participation in illegal import by filing bonds without the signature of the importer. Such a bond has no value, and the department would not have accepted it. The departmental representative tells us that what happened was that the importer signed the form of the bond, containing no details of the goods, the particulars being filled in later on by the appellant. Here again we do not see any illegality. If an importer chose to hand over letters or forms signed blank leaving it to the custom house agent to fill the details, he would have to face the consequences if the custom house agent plays any mischief. We do not see how this by itself in the facts before us gives rise to a conclusion that the appellant abetted in undervaluing the goods. This is particularly so when the goods were provisionally assessed on arrival because their value was to be verified and the bonds that were tendered were for such provisional assessment. What was contained in the bond therefore could not have influenced the department in its conclusion about the value.
4. The Collector's observation that the appellant should have verified the antecedents of the importers is not correct. It is not possible for every custom house agent or any professional to verify the background or history of every person who wishes to engage his services; nor do the regulation requires such verification. In short there is totally insufficient evidence to say that the appellant knew or have reason to believe that the goods were undervalued.
5. The other ground relied upon by the advocate for the appellant, that while the Collector has not taken action against the proprietary concern (on the ground that separate proceedings were pending with the Collector of Customs under the licensing regulations), he has imposed penalty on Rahul Joshi, the proprietor. The proprietor and his firm do not have an existence independent of each other.
6. For these reasons we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order.