Judgment
2. Appellants tiled this appeal against the Adjudication Order passed by the Commissioner of Customs, whereby penalty of rupees two lakh was imposed on the appellant under Section 114 of the Custom Act.3. Appellants are working as a Customs Inspector. M/s. Romil International filed four shipping bills declaring the goods as readymade garments. The appellant gave an examination report that the goods were as per declaration. Subsequently the goods were re-examined and it was found that in instead of readymade garments, these were low valued old and used garments. The exporter of the consignment was entitled to drawback claim in respect of ready-made garments exported.
The total value declared by the exporter is Rs.2,13,38,234.00 whereas on examination, it was found that the goods were valued at Rs.10,27,135.00. The adjudicating Authority, after issuance of the show cause notice, confiscated the goods and disallowed the drawback and imposed penalties on exporter and other persons including the appellant. The contention of the appellant is that due to rush of work, as he was holding other charge as Inspector, (Headquarters) also, he without examining the goods gave the examination report to the effect that the goods were as per declaration in the shipping Bill. Therefore, appellant is liable only for administration action as per Civil Services Conduct Rules and not under the Customs Act. The appellant also relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of C.C., New Delhi v. Hargovind Export and Ors. Reported in 2003 (58) RLT 759 and in the case of C.C., Mumbai v. M. Vasi and Ors. reported in 2003 (54) RLT 222 to submit that the appellant cannot be held liable for abatement as abatement pre-supposes knowledge of the proposed offence and also presupposed benefit to be derived by the abetters therefrom. In the present case there is no evidence on record that the appellants was in any way was beneficiary from the export or the drawback, which is to be made available to the exporter only. The appellants also relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of C.C., New Delhi v. M.I.Khan to submit that as per the provisions Section 155 of the Customs Act, no legal proceedings can be initiated against a Custom officer.
4. The contention is also that the investigation was conducted in respect of export made by some other exporter viz. M/s. P.S.International and the evidence collected in that proceeding and the statements recorded during that investigation of that case are made basis in the present case for imposition of penalty. The contention is that in these circumstances the penalty is not sustain-able.
5. In this case, the appellant was working as Customs Inspector and his duty was to examine the goods, which were to be exported. In the present case, the exporter filed four shipping bills declaring the goods as readymade garments valued at Rs.2,13,38,234.00. The appellants have admitted that he has not examined the goods and without examining the goods, he gave the examination report to the effect that goods are as per declaration. Subsequently, the goods were re-examined and it was found that the goods are old and used garments.
6. The exporter is entitled for the drawback claim @ 18 per cent which comes approximately to rupees 38 lakh on the declared value of ready made garments. In these circumstances and in view of the admitted fact that without examining the goods the appellant gave the examination report, which would have been resulted into higher drawback claim to the exporter which was not due and loss to the Revenue of the same amount. The contention of the appellant regarding abetment is that there is no evidence on record to show that the appellant is connected with the exporter or he has any monitory benefit out of this export. We find it has come on record to that Shri Vinod Gandotara was the link between the exporter and custom official and the adjudicating authority in para 77 gave a finding regarding consideration for giving favorable report also. The reliance of appellant on the decision in the case of M.I. Khan (supra) that he is protected under Section 155 of the Customs Act. We find that as the appellant is duty bound to examine the goods and to give an examination report of the goods whether the goods under export were as the declaration given by exporter but the appellant acted contrary and gave an examination report, which is not as per the description of the goods and the result of this report could have caused loss Revenue and undue advantage to the exporter. In these circumstances, we find no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed.