Penalty - Customs official in his statement admitting that he had accepted gratification and granted LET order in respect of consignments which were overvalued to claim undue DEPB benefits - Pre-deposit ordered: CESTAT

MUMBAI: THE applicant is a Superintendent in the Customs Department and during investigation it was found that he granted Let Export Order in respect of consignments involved in these appeals by receiving monetary gratification.

On the search of the residential premises of the applicant an amount of Rs.57 LAKHS CASHwas also recovered.

Against the order passed by the adjudicating authority, the applicant filed appeals before the

Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) vide interim order directed the applicant to deposit an amount equal to 50% of the penalties for hearing of the appeals. The penalties imposed were Rs.2.5 lakhs and Rs.5 lakhs respectively. As the applicant did not comply with the condition of the stay order, therefore, the appeals were dismissed.

Before the CESTAT the appellant submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) should have decided the appeals on merits without asking for any pre-deposit. Inasmuch as since theapplicant had not done anything wrongwhile discharging his official duty, he is not liable for any penalty, the applicant submitted.

The Revenue representative submitted that the applicant is a Superintendent of Customs and he issued let export order on receipt of gratification. The exporter filed the shipping bills under the DEPB scheme and the value of exported goods were declared at higher side to get undue DEPB benefits and on the market survey it was found that the goods were overvalued. Hence the applicant is liable for penalties.

The Bench observed -

"5. We find that the admitted facts of the case are that the applicant issued let export order in respect of the goods which were found to be mis-declared in respect of value. Market survey shows that the goods were overvalued to get undue export benefit.

6. Further we find that the applicant in his statement dated 24.09.2009 recorded under Sec.108 of the Customs Act admitted that he had earlier passed several overvalued consignments to various exporters on monetary consideration. Further we find that one Smt. KirtiRathod, Preventive Officer of Customs who examined the shipping bills in question and found that the declared value was on higher side and thereafter she personally brought this fact to the notice of the applicant and the applicant informed her that valuation is not her responsibility and that it is the work of the Superintendent and field officer. In these circumstances, we find that the applicant has not made out a prima case for total waiver of the penalties. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the applicant to deposit an amount equal to 50% of the penalty in each case adjudged in the impugned order within a period of eight weeks…."