2002 (5) TMI 755 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of Indian currency under the Customs Act.
2. Imposition of personal penalty on the appellant.
3. Sale of medicines by the appellant and its implications.

Confiscation of Indian Currency:
The case involved the confiscation of Indian currency and imposition of a personal penalty on the appellant under the Customs Act. The appellant, a licensed distributor of medicines, sold medicines to Indian nationals without medical prescriptions. The investigation revealed that a buyer was smuggling the medicines to Myanmar. The Commissioner of Customs confiscated the currency and imposed a penalty. The appellant contested, arguing lack of knowledge about the export and challenging the findings. The Tribunal analyzed Section 121 of the Customs Act, stating that confiscation applies to smuggled goods, not goods attempted to be smuggled. As the goods were sold to Indian nationals in India, the currency couldn't be confiscated under Section 121. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant on this ground.

Imposition of Personal Penalty:
The Commissioner imposed a personal penalty on the appellant based on the assumption that the large quantity of medicines sold indicated knowledge of illegal export. The appellant's defense highlighted the lack of evidence proving the appellant's awareness of the intended export. The Tribunal noted that there was no proof that the appellant knew about the export, and the investigation report by Customs Officers favored the appellant. The Commissioner's dismissal of the report was criticized for being biased and predetermined. The Tribunal found no substantial evidence linking the appellant to the illegal export, leading to the decision to set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.

Sale of Medicines by the Appellant:
The appellant, a licensed distributor, sold medicines to Indian nationals without prescriptions. The investigation revealed that a buyer was smuggling the medicines to Myanmar. The Commissioner initiated proceedings against the appellant, leading to the confiscation of currency and imposition of a personal penalty. The appellant's defense emphasized the lack of knowledge about the export and challenged the findings. The Tribunal scrutinized the investigation report, highlighting discrepancies and bias in the Commissioner's decision-making process. Ultimately, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, overturning the impugned order and providing consequential relief.