The Hyderabad Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that no one can be punished/held guilty on the basis of criminal history as each case has its own distinct facts and it is decided based on those facts.
The bench of A.K. Jyotishi (Technical Member) and Angad Prasad (Judicial Member) has observed that under the doctrine known as ‘Respondent Superior’, an employer will be responsible for the actions of its employees taken within the scope of employment. Since the opportunity of cross examination was not given by the customs department, therefore, this statement cannot be based on any finding.
The appellant/assessee is a holder of Customs Broker Lincese issued by Hyderabad Customs Commissionerate with validity up to 28.01.2025. The appellant is a partnership firm with Shri Rajendranath Bharathi and Smt. Padmaja Bharathi as partners. They are also transacting their business in Bengaluru Customs in terms of Regulation 7(2) of CBLR, 2013 (now Regulation 7(3) of CBLR, 2018).
The Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Bengaluru forwarded a letter along with investigation report issued by the DRI, Bengaluru and SCN dt.24.01.2022 issued by Additional Commissioner, wherein it was mentioned that DRI had intercepted export consignment of red sanders, which was being attempted to be exported by way of misdeclaring the same as ‘industrial pipes’ by M/s TEAC Engineers from export shed of Air India Sats, Bengaluru and the appellant is involved in the same.
In the investigation report, it was brought out that Shri C. Munikrishna, G-Card holder of the appellant, was knowingly involved in the conspiracy of illegal smuggling and actively participated in the illegal export of red sanders with the support of false documents. Shri Satish Kumar T, who was alleged to be the main person involved in the said illegal export, in his statement dt.31.07.2021 and 28.08.2021 has submitted that the shipping bill dt.03.06.2021 was filed by Shri C. Munikrishna by using the CHA credentials of the appellant at Bangalore branch and that he was aware that shipments pertaining to the shipping were misdeclared and Rs.2,00,000/- was paid in cash to Shri C. Munikrishna for these clearances.
Based on the above information, SCN was issued to the appellant in the present case alleging that they had violated Regulation 10(a), (d), (e), (f), (m), (n) and 13(2) of CBLR, 2018. After due process, the adjudicating authority, vide the impugned order, revoked the CB License of the appellant and ordered for forfeiture of security deposit apart from imposing penalties on the appellant and Shri Rajendranath Bharathi.
The tribunal held that SCN was issued within prescribed period but the department has not approved for cross-examination and the reason given by the Commissioner is not reasonable and sustainable. Therefore, the matter should be remanded to the Adjudicating Authority to decide after giving proper opportunity of cross-examination.
Case Details
Case Title: M/s Concorde Zoom Versus Commissioner of Customs Hyderabad – Customs
Case No.: Customs Appeal No. 30063 of 2024
Date: 13.06.2025
Counsel For Appellant: A.K. Jayaraj
Counsel For Respondent: B. Subhas Chandra Bose
Read More: Products Emerging During Refining Rice Bran Oil Are waste; No Excise Duty Payable: CESTAT
