2008 PTD 1787
ABDUS SALAM KHAWAR, (MEMBER JUDICIAL/CHAIRMAN).--- This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No.164 of 2008, dated 12-3-2008 passed by the respondent No.2, whereunder he rejected the appeal of the appellants and upheld the order, dated 5-9-2007 passed by the respondent No.2 confiscating the consignment of 100 NPB pistols outrightly and imposing penalty equal to 3 times of the value of the goods on the appellant as well as revoking the Customs House Licence of appellant No.3 and forfeiture of security deposited by him.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Messrs Jhelum Enterprises Customs Clearing Agent presented Good Declaration No.16713 of 2007, dated 22-4-2007 for the clearance of a consignment consisting of 100 pistols made in USA. During the examination, the Import Authorization No.05582, dated 6-9-2006 provided along with import documents was found suspicious. Therefore, the original copy of the, said import authorization was obtained from the officials record, which showed import ceiling worth Rs.500,000 and when it was tallied with the import authorization presented by the clearing agent on behalf of Messrs Trans International (Pvt.) Islamabad it was found tampered/forged, showing the amount of import authorization of Rs.50,00,000. As import authorization was suspected tampered/forged, subsequently, the same was got verified from the Ministry of Commerce who confirmed vide their Letter No.19(29)2006-Impt-I, dated 2-5-2007 that no authorization of Rs.5 Million was ever issued by Ministry of Commerce. Therefore, the imported consignment consisting of 100 pistols along with Goods Declaration No.16713107, House Airway Bill, Delivery orders, Master Airway Bill, LC, Invoice, Original Cargo Manifest and US Department of State Transaction No.196 were seized after proper documentation and regular case was registered against the appellant, Syed Irfan Ali son of Syed Suleman, Islamabad, both of Messrs Trans International (Pvt.) Ltd., Islamabad and Raja Abid Mehmood son of Sultan Mehmood of Messrs Jhelum Enterprises, Customs Clearing Agency vide F.I.R. No.17 of 2007, dated 30-4-2007 with the Investigation and Prosecution Branch of Collectorate of Customs, Rawalpindi for violation of provisions of sections 32, 156(1)(14)(77), 157 and 178 of the Customs Act, 1969 read with section 3(1) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1950. The clearing 'agent had also contravened the provisions of rule 102(iv)(v) punishable under rules 103 and 104(2) of the Customs Agents Licensing Rules, 2001. It was further reported that hectic efforts were made to arrest the accused persons. As a result thereof, the appellant, Syed Irfan Ali and Raja Abid Mehmood (Customs Clearing Agent) joined the investigation on 19-6-2007 after getting pre-arrest bail from the Court of Special Judge Customs, Rawalpindi., During the investigation, their detailed statements were reduced into writing in which they admitted the factum of recovery but denied the allegation of tampering/forgery of import authorization.. The clearing agent stated that the tampered import authorization amounting to Rs.50,00,000 was faxed to him by his accomplice Syed Irfan Ali Shah, while all other documents were received by him personally from Syed Irfan Ali Shah from his office at Islamabad. It was also found that Ministry of Commerce had also issued cancellation of import authorization of Messrs Trans International (Pvt.) Ltd., Islamabad owned by Syed Irfan Ali and the appellant vide their Letter No.19(29) 2006 Imp. I, dated 12-5-2007. It was also reported that during the clearance of another consignment of Arms and Ammunition vide Goods Declaration No.1231, dated 2-7-2006, Syed Iran Ali Shah of Messrs Trans International submitted an undertaking in which he stated that their annual limit of import was Rs.50,00,000 which clearly showed their mens rea that they were already planning to get their consignments cleared through tampered/forged documents, they clandestinely changed the amount of import authorization from Rs.5,00,000 to 50,00,000 for clearance of the present seized consignment. Accordingly, a show-cause notice was issued to the appellant. The case was adjudicated upon by the respondent, who ordered for outright confiscation of the seized goods. A penalty equal to three times the value of the seized goods was also imposed upon all the three respondents. The Customs House Agents Licence of Raja Abid Mehmood son of Sultan Mehmood, proprietor of Messrs Jhelum Enterprises was revoked forthwith and the amount of Rs.30,000 deposited as security was also ordered to be forfeited.
3. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred appeal before the Collector (Appeals), Rawalpindi who vide order, dated 12-3-2008 dismissed the appeal and the Order-in-Original No.36 of 2007, dated 5-9-2007 was upheld. Aggrieved of the same, this appeal has been preferred on the following grounds:
(a) That as per show-cause notice, dated 27-6-2007, the appellants were charged for certain violations in respect of consignment subject-matter of GD No.16713, dated 22-4-2007, but while passing order, dated 5-9-2007 respondent No.1 made basis the import made by the appellants prior to the present consignment and the events took place after the said consignment and this infirmity was brought to the notice of respondent No.2 who did not utter a single word in this behalf while passing the impugned order.
(b) That the hearing before respondent No.1 was concluded and judgment was reserved by him on 7-8-2007. Thereafter, neither any hearing was granted nor appellant were confronted with any material. However, while passing the order, dated 5-9-2007, respondent No.1 incorporated registration of F.I.R. No.26 of 2007, dated 23-8-2007 and this fact was agitated by the appellants before respondent No.2 but he miserably failed to address the same.
(c) That respondent No.1 travelled beyond the scope of show-cause notice, because appellant No.3 was never called upon to show cause as to why his licence should not be cancelled but while passing order, dated 5-9-2007, respondent No.1 revoked, the licence of appellant No.3 and also forfeitured security deposited by him but again respondent No.2 has failed to even discuss this issue in the impugned order which infirmity makes the same void.
(d) That respondent No.1 was neither competent to revoke the licence of appellant No.3 nor he had called upon to show cause in this behalf as is evident from the perusal of para. 4 of the show-cause notice, dated 27-6-2007 which reads as under:--
Now, therefore, Muhammad Faisal Iqbal Qureshi son of Riaz Iqbal Qureshi, Syed Irfan Ali son of Suleman (Importer) and Raja Abid Mehmood son of Sultan Mehmood (Customs Clearing Agent) are hereby called upon to show cause within ten days of the receipt of this notice as to why the above mentioned seized goods should not be confiscated and why penal action should not be taken against them for violation of above mentioned provisions of Customs Law.
(e) That in the entire show-cause notice there was no charge against appellant No.3 regarding revocation of this licence or as the case may be forfeiture of his security but while passing the order and travelling beyond the scope of show-cause notice the respondent No.1 had revoked the licence of appellant No.3 and also forfeited the security deposited by him which action on his part was wholly without jurisdiction. This also proves the personal grudge and interest of respondent No.1 in case of appellants but respondent No.2 has neither addressed this issue nor mentioned a single word in this behalf.
(f) That the show-cause notice was served upon the appellants including appellant No. 3 for violating the provisions of section 32 punishable under Clause (14)(77) of section 156(1) of the Customs Act, 1969 whereas the order so far as it relates to appellant No.3 was passed under Chapter-VIII of the Customs Rules, 2001 relating to Customs Agent Licencing. Hence, revocation of a licence by invoking the provisions of section 32 by the respondent was illegal and baseless.
(g) That the licence of the appellant No.3 can be revoked by the licencing authority under Rule 103 of the Customs Act, 2001 for the reasons given therein whereas in the present case the licence was revoked by the Adjudicating Authority under section 32 of the Customs Act, 1969 which is void, illegal without jurisdiction and of no legal effect.
(h) That admittedly there was neither any loss to the revenue nor such attempt was made. Thus, section 32 punishable under clause 14 of subsection (1) of section 156 cannot be invoked in this ease. It is pointed out that clause (1) cannot be read in isolation. It is to be read in harmony with subsections (2), (3), (3-A) of section 32 of the Customs Act, 1969. Entire provisions of section 32 revolves around the central point of loss of revenue suffered by the Customs Department on account of conduct of any person. In case 'Department has not suffered any loss on account of the conduct of the importer, the question of applicability of section 32 of the Customs Act, 1969 does not arise. Reliance in this behalf is placed on Messrs Al-Hamd Edible Oil (P.) Ltd. and others v. Collector of Customs and others 2003 PTD 552 and Federation of Pakistan and others v. Saman Diplomatic Bonded Warehouse 2004 PTD 1189.
(i) That basically section 32 deals with recovery of duties and charges payable to the Exchequer either on account of fraudulent act of personal liability to pay duty or charge or through error customs officials as is evident from a reading of clauses (2), (3), (3-A) and (4). Moreover, clause (1) of the said provisions of law requires that the untrue statement must be made in connection with any matter of customs and should be false in any material particular. A harmonious reading of the entire section tends to show that it .does not cover every untrue declaration having nothing to do with evasion of customs duty or other charges but such statement must indicate an attempt to defraud public revenue. Hence, the document allegedly forged not relating to evasion of duty and taxes shall not attract the provisions of section 32 punishable under clause 14 of subsection (1) of section 156 of the Customs Act, 1969, reliance in this behalf is placed on Messrs A.R. Hosiery Works Karachi v. Collector of Customs (Export) an 2004 PTD 2977.
(j) That the aforesaid judgment of the learned Division Bench of Honourable High Court of Sindh at Karachi delivered in case of Messrs A.R. Hosiery Works Karachi was assailed by the Department before the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan vide CPLA No.330-K of 2004, but the same was dismissed vide judgment, dated 14-10-2005 (200T PTD 2215) and it was held by their Lordships that the provisions of section 32(1) of the Customs Act, 1969 would only be attracted when mis declaration or misstatement is made with a view to obtain illegal gain by evasion of payment of customs duty and others taxes or by causing loss to the Government Revenue. It was further held by their Lordships that if there is no loss to the Government, the provisions of section 32(1) of the Customs Act, 1969 would not be applied. It is humbly pointed out that in the present case admittedly no loss of revenue took place and as such no offence punishable under section 32 of the Customs Act, 1969 is made out.
(k) That the respondent has fallen in error of law to hold that the appellants made import without import authorization. It is humbly pointed out that during last year the appellant were authorized to make import of NPB Weapons of the value' of Rs.5,00,000 which ceiling was enhanced to Rs.,20,00,000 on annual basis and as such the appellants had sufficient balance of import quota for the importation of the present consignment and also the subsequent consignment. It is submitted that the value of the goods imported by the appellants was about Rs.11,00,000 whereas the entitlement of Rs.20,00,000 was available with the appellants for the years, 2007.
(l) That the respondent No.1 has wrongly confiscated NPB Weapons included in the positive list imported by the appellants outrightly without extending option under section 181 of the Customs Act, 1969 to pay fine in lieu of confiscation fully knowing that the appellants had sufficient quota and that no out-right confiscation was provided for the offence of mis declaration, if any, made by the importer in respect of such goods.
(m) That 'at the time of filing of GD in respect of present consignment in question the appellants had sufficient quota covering the said consignment and that the cancellation of the said quota by the Ministry of Commerce vide, letter, dated 12-5-2007 could not be applied retrospective to the consignment subject-matter of GD No.16713 of 2007, dated 22-4-2007. It is pointed out on 22-4-2007 there was valid quota available with the appellants against which the GD in respect of 100 NPB pistols was filed and as such the effect of cancellation of import entitlement vide letter, dated 12-5-2007 would not apply retrospectively.
(n) That besides above there is no evidence at all available with the department to establish the allegation of fabrication against the appellants. The so-called fabricated letter was allegedly received from the bank and the bank has denied of having submitted such letter. Moreover, no original letter is held by the department nor it was produced during adjudication proceedings. No such letter was ever presented by the appellants.
(o) That besides above the impugned order besides being void and illegal is also harsh in nature. There was no justification with the respondents for outright confiscation of the goods. They were not justified to impose such a huge penalty on the appellants.
(p) That respondent No.2, incorporated all the aforesaid grounds taken by the appellants in the impugned order but does not address any one of the same and dismissed the appeal in arbitrary and mechanical manner and as such the impugned order is not sustainable under the law.
(q) That respondent No.3 has wrongly mentioned in the impugned order that the appellants were involved in various import frauds in the past nor there was any such charge against the appellants. Probably respondent No.2 was briefed by respondent No.1 who had personal grudge against the appellant and was biased. The appeal of the appellant was dismissed by respondent No.2 at the instance of respondent No.1.
(r) That respondent No.2 has also wrongly mentioned that the appellants got cleared consignments subject-matter of GD No.19475, dated 24-5-2006, 1231 of 2006, dated 22-7-2006 and 5259 of 2006, dated 3-1-2006 on the basis of fake import authorization in active connivance with the customs house agent. It is pointed out that neither there was any such charge against the appellant nor they were confronted with any such evidence. Moreover, no consignment can be cleared merely in connivance with the customs 'house agent unless there was blessing of respondent No.1 who was the Incharge and Controlling Authority at AFU Airport, Islamabad.
(s) That the appellants from the day one were agitating to confront them with a document which was allegedly tampered but neither respondent No.1 nor respondent No.2 could confront the appellant with any such document. It is pointed out that no such document in original is available with the Department to establish that the appellant tampered any import authorization. The original import authorization is held by the appellants which does not contain any tampering and the same was produced before the respondents Nos.1 and 2 they intentionally concealed this fact while passing the impugned orders.
(t) That the appellants imported the consignment of NPB weapons under proper import authorization. The import was conducted against letter of credit established with the scheduled Bank. At the time of arrival of consignment of valid import authorization was in the field and as such outright confiscation thereof was unjustified and illegal.
(u) That even otherwise no outright confiscation is provided for NPB weapons imported by the appellants against proper letter of credit and import authorization. Hence, outright confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalty upon the appellants is unjustified and illegal.
(v) That the consignment imported by the appellant is lying at the port since last about one year and had gone under heavy demurrage and other port charges. The confiscation of the goods is unjustified and illegal. There was no charge against the appellants of evasion of taxes. The allegation of tampering import authorization is baseless, false and fabricated and no such documents is held on record nor the appellants were ever confronted with the same.
Under the circumstances, it is most respectfully prayed that by accepting this appeal, impugned orders, being illegal, unjust, unreasoned, void and without jurisdiction be set aside, the consignment of 100 NPB pistols imported by the appellants Nos.1 and 2 and lying at AFU Islamabad Airport Islamabad since April, 2007 be directed to be released on payment of duty and taxes, penalty be waived and the licence of appellant No.3 may kindly be restored enabling him to perform his function in accordance with law.
4. In the parawise comments submitted by the respondent all the allegations were controverted. It was maintained that the show-cause notice was served on the appellants for violating the provisions of sections 32, 156(i)(14)(77), 157 and 178 of Customs Act, 1969 read with section 3(i) of the Import and Exports (Control) Act, 1950. The clearing agent was also charged for contravention of the provisions of rule 104(2) of the Customs Agents Licencing Rules, 2001. It was maintained that the confiscation of the seized goods revocation of the licence and imposition of the penalty was in accordance with the law. It was asserted that the contentions of the appellant to the effect that neither any loss to the revenue nor such admission was made, therefore, section 32 of the Customs Act, 1969 was not attracted; was also negated. To support his this contention, reference was placed to PLD 1986 Karachi 373. It was alleged that the appellants adopted modus operandi to clear the import consignment on the basis of fake and forged import authorization. The charge of forgery and fabrication of the documents by the appellant has been clearly established.
5. At the very outset Mian Abdul Ghaffar, Advocate learned counsel for the appellant has asserted that the provisions of section 32 of the Customs Act, are not attracted in the circumstances of the present case. He maintained that the provisions laid down under section 32(1) and (2) are to be read together. He maintained that there was no evasion or short levy of tax, therefore, section 32(2) ibid are not attracted. To support his contention, he relied on 2004 PTD 2977 and 2004 CLC 1831. Furthermore, it was pointed out that the appellant neither at the adjudicating stage nor at the appellate stage were confronted with the alleged forged documents. According to him no report from handwriting/ testimonial expert were called for and without that it was illegal to rely upon the same.
6. It was pleaded 'that the Adjudicating Officer and Collector (Appeals) have transgressed their powers. No outright confiscation of the goods imported could be ordered. As held by the superior Courts the appellants should have been given option to pay redemption fine under section 181 of the Customs Act, 1969. Reliance was placed on 2007 PTD 2215. Learned counsel for the appellants maintained that they had the import authorization from the Ministry of Commerce as was pointed out in Letter No.19(29)/2006-Imp-I and the consignment imported was of Rs.11,57,000, therefore, the appellant was not supposed to file any forged documents. It was also asserted that for supposition sake even if a forged document was tendered that was fraud for Commerce Ministry and, therefore, no action could be initiated by the customs authorities in this regard.
7. Mr. Imran Chaudhry, Deputy Collector/D.R. appearing on behalf of respondents contested the submissions made by the appellants and submitted that to get undue advantage the appellants submitted forged documents and prior to this he was also involved in such-like fraudulent activities. He negated that the import of the appellants was less than twenty lac and therefore, he had no need to present any authorization of fifty lac. He maintained that in four consignments the value is of round about 3.4 millions and the authorization amounting to Rs.20,00,000 was not covered. Therefore, to hoodwink the authorities, this forged document was tendered by the clearing agent. The principal was bound by the Act and omission of the clearing agent under section 209 of the Customs Act and the appellant/importer could not escape his liability. Furthermore, it was maintained that on the query made by the respondent department the import authorization the issue in favour of Messrs Trans International (Pvt.) Ltd., has been cancelled and, therefore, these goods cannot be released. Furthermore, he maintained that under S.R.O. 487, no option of redemption was available and, therefore, outright confiscation was ordered.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents also referred to an. undertaking dated 26th July, 2006 and a letter addressed to the Assistant Collector Customs, Islamabad, dated 24-7-2006 and photocopy of record allegedly recovered from the possession of clearing agent. In this regard it seems that different stances have been taken. In the undertaking, the annual limit of import had been recorded Rs.500,000 in letter, dated 24-7-2006 no limit has been prescribed and as per the alleged documents recovered from the possession of the clearing agent it has been mentioned as Rs.50,000.
9. To sum up the learned D.R. maintained that the appellants had not approached the Court with clean hands, therefore, he was not entitled for the discretionary relief as held in C.P.L.A. 1098 of 2006 in Re: West Pakistan Tank Terminal (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Collector Appraisement.
10. In rebuttal, the learned counsel for the appellants clarified that the issues have been confused and the documents are being mis interpreted. He maintained that the undertaking, dated 25-7-2006 purported to have been filed by the appellants is forged one it was never presented before any authority. It does not bear signature of acceptance or even presentation. As regard to letter, dated 24-7-2006, it was admitted to be genuine. It was pointed therein that the letter of import was issued by the Ministry of Interior which obviously does not fix any limit. The documents allegedly recovered from the clearing agent were also dubious and forged. It was pointed out that the appellants were never confronted with this document at any stage.
11. It was pointed out that as per Ministry of Commerce, the import limit was twenty lac per annum and the import made by the appellants covered two financial year i.e., 2006 and 2007.
12. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Imran Chaudhry, Deputy Collector/D. R. and have also gone through the record minutely. The learned counsel for the appellant has asserted that the show-cause notice was issued to the appellant under section 32, of the Customs Act, 1969 punishable under clause 14 of subsection (1) of section 156. It was argued that clause (1) of section 32 cannot be read in isolation. It is to be read in harmony with subsections (2), (3), (3-A) of section 32 of the Customs Act, 1969. According to him entire provisions of section 32 revolves around the central point of loss of revenue suffered by the Customs Department on account of conduct of any person. In case department has not suffered any loss on account of the conduct of the importer the question of applicability of section 32 of the Customs Act, 1969 does not raise. To substantiate his arguments, he relied on 2003 PTD 552 and SBLR 2004 Sindh.
13. To appreciate the arguments advanced by the learned for the appellant, it would bg proper to reproduce the relevant provision of law:-
32. Untrue statement, error, etc .---If any person, in connection with any matter of customs,---
(a) ----------------------
(b) ---------------------
(2) Where, by reason of any such document or statement as aforesaid or by reason of some collusion, any duty or charge has not been levied or has been short-levied or has been erroneously refunded, the person liable to pay any amount on that account shall be served with a notice within five years of the relevant date, requiring him to show cause why he should not pay the amount specified in the notice.
(3) Where, by reason of any inadvertence, error or misconstruction, any duty or charge has not been levied or has been short levied or has been erroneously refunded, the person liable to pay any amount on that account shall be served with a notice Within three years of the relevant date requiring him to show cause why he should not pay the amount specified in the notice."
14. Though under section 32(1) of the Customs Act, 1969, if any person knowing or having reasons to believe that any documents presented or submission made was false, he shall be guilty of an offence under this section but this provision has been amplified by the superior Courts in various judgments. In 2004 PTD 1189, High Court of Sindh, Karachi; it was held `statements or documents, untrue in any form, amendments made in the section, effect observed -- cognizance or knowledge of untrue statement, in material particular, absence of, whether makes notice without jurisdiction -- no loss or evasion of duty, observed; that entire provisions revolved around the central point of loss of revenue, no allegations of loss of revenue made, held, applicability of section 32 in the circumstances does not arise.' Likewise in 2004 PTD 2977, it was held by his Lordship Mr. Sahibuddin Ahmed in Messrs A.R. Hosiery Works, Karachi v. Collector of Customs (Export), Karachi and others and "section 32 of the Customs Act, 1969 did pot cover any untrue declaration having knowing with evasion of customs duty or other charges but such statement/declaration must indicate an attempt to deferent public revenue". This point was confirmed in 2007 PTD in Re: Collector of Customs (Export and another v. A.R. Hosiety Works, Karachi their lordships held that provisions of section 32(1) of the Customs Act, 1969 would be attracted only when misdeclaration or misstatement was made with a view to obtain the illegal gain by evasion of payment of customs duty and. other taxes or by causing loss to Government revenue'.
15. Viewing the matter in the perspective of the law expounded by the superior Courts of Pakistan; in the instant case misstatement or the alleged submission of false declaration was not with a view to cause loss to the government exchequer or to defraud the public revenue thus, on this score, I am of the view that section 32 of the Customs Act, 1969 and the penal clauses referred to sections 156(1)(14)(77), 157 and 178 of the Customs Act, 1969 are not applicable. As per record, the appellant imported a consignment of 100 pistols made in USA. The 'Customs Clearing Agent presented a Goods Declaration No.16713 of 2007, dated 22-4-2007 for the clearance of consignment of above mentioned goods.. During the examination the Import Authorization No.05582, dated 6-9-2006 provided along with import documents were found suspected. The original copy of the import authorization was obtained from the official record which showed import ceiling worth Rs.5,00,000 and when it was tallied with the import authorization presented by the clearing agent on behalf of Messrs Trans International (Pvt.) Ltd., it was found tampered/forged showing the amount of import authorization of Rs.5 Millions. As import authorization was found tampered/forged subsequently the same was got verified from the Ministry of Commerce which confirmed vide Letter 19(29)2006-Imp-1, dated 2-5-2007 that no such authorization of Rs.5 millions was ever issued by the Ministry of Commerce. Therefore, the imported consignment consisting of 100 pistols along with Goods Declaration No.167131 of 2007, house airway bill delivery orders, Master Airway Bill, LC., Invoice, Original Cargo Manifest and US Department of State Transaction No.196 were seized after proper documentation and regular case was registered against the appellant. The D.R. appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the appellants are involved in making of forged documents and previously they were involved in such-like fraudulent activities. He negated the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that value of the impugned goods was less than 20 lacs and, therefore, there was no necessity or need for presenting any forged authorization worth Rs.5 Millions. The D.R. maintained that the appellant had imported four consignments, the value of these comes to Rs.3.4 millions and the valid authorization of Rs.20 lacs was not covered. The Department was obliged to take action against the appellant. I fee that in the circumstances the provisions of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1950 are fully attracted. Vide letter, dated 12-5-2007, the Ministry of Commerce had cancelled the Import Authorization No.05582, dated 6th September, 2006 and No.057717, dated 12-12-2006 issued to Messrs Trans International. In consequence of this cancellation letter the appellants were not authorized or competent to import the goods in issue.
16. The plea advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that in place of outright confiscation, the appellant should have been allowed to get the goods cleared after the payment of fine and other dues vide S.R.O.487(I) of 2007, dated 9th June, 2007. I feel that this facility was not available as there was no authorization from the competent Ministry. Thus, I am of the considered opinion that the outright confiscation of the goods imported by the appellant was justified under the law.
17. At the time of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant did not address anything in favour of the appellant No.3 who is the Customs Clearing Agent. However, in the memo. of appeal it was agitated that the action against appellant No.3 was uncalled for and illegal. It was submitted that sections 32, 156 and 178 of the Customs Act, 1969 was not attracted in the case of appellant No.3. Even the applicability of rules 103 and 104(2) of the Customs Agents Licensing Rules, 2001 was also denied.
18. The perusal of the record and as held hereinbefore the authorization of the importer was fake, forged and thereafter it was cancelled. Therefore, being the agent, the appellant No.4 is fully liable for the acts and the omissions of the principal. The appellant No.3 has violated rules 102 (4 and 6) of the Customs Agents Licensing Rules. Therefore, the action taken against him under rules 103 and 104 of the rules ibid is justified. The plea taken on behalf of the appellant No.3 is not tenable in the law.
19. For the foregoing reasons, appeal filed by the appellant is hereby rejected and, the decision by the respondent No.2 is upheld.
C.M.A./72/Tax (Trib.) Appeal rejected.