Case Law Details
Meghna Clearing and Forwarding P. Ltd Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Mumbai)
In the present case the concern clerk admitted his mistake and sought for a lenient view in the matter. As per Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act facts admitted by the parties or their agents are not required to be proved in any proceedings. In this regard in citing judicial decisions reported in 2007 (212) ELT 112 (Tri.-Bang.) in the case of A.S. Gopinath Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Cochin learned Counsel for the Appellant had argued that master cannot be held liable for Acts committed by servant beyond the scope of authority and therefore, for laches on the part of employee of Mr. Bidhan R Parida in mistakenly handing over the goods to GHA without Let Export Order, CHA can’t be held liable. However, the ratio of this judgement can’t be applied here since the same has been passed without appreciation of para 13(12) of the CHA Licencing Regulation, It reads:
“The Customs broker shall exercise such supervision as may be necessary to ensure proper conduct of his employees in the transaction of business and he shall be held responsible for all acts and omissions of his employees during their employment.”
(underlined to emphasise)
Therefore, for act of the employee direct responsibility is fixed on the Customs broker for which the findings of the Tribunal at Bangalore in the case of A.S. Gopinath (supra) cannot help the Appellant in getting the desired remedy.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
