2002 (10) TMI 558 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to penalty imposed under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Background:
The appellant contested a penalty of Rs. 5 Lakhs imposed under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act by the Commissioner of Customs for dealing with goods allegedly liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Act.

2. Appellant's Arguments:
The appellant's consultant argued that the goods were freely importable and not liable to confiscation under Section 111(d). He contended that the penalty was unjustified, especially relying on the retracted statements and lack of corroborative evidence from co-noticees.

3. Respondent's Arguments:
The JDR supported the Commissioner's findings, citing the appellant's confessional statement and reliance on co-noticee statements. He referenced legal precedents to support the decision.

4. Tribunal's Analysis:
The Tribunal examined whether the penalty imposed under Section 112(b) was sustainable. It assessed the appellant's knowledge and belief regarding the nature of the goods, crucial for determining liability under the Customs Act.

5. Interpretation of Section 112(b):
The Tribunal emphasized that couriers like the appellant should ensure goods are not liable to confiscation under Section 111 before carriage. The analysis delved into the applicability of Section 111(d) concerning goods imported contrary to prohibitions.

6. Examination of Goods:
The Tribunal scrutinized the goods seized, determining that some were freely importable while others were not. It highlighted the appellant's admission of knowledge regarding the goods, leading to liability under Section 112(b).

7. Decision:
The Tribunal upheld the appellant's liability under Section 112(b) but reduced the penalty from Rs. 5 Lakhs to Rs. 1 Lakh. It concluded that the appellant was aware of the confiscability of some goods under Section 111(d) but not of freely importable goods, justifying the penalty reduction.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment addressed the challenge to the penalty imposed under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, emphasizing the importance of knowledge and belief regarding goods' confiscability under Section 111(d) for determining liability. The decision balanced the appellant's admission with the nature of the seized goods, leading to a reduced penalty based on the goods' importability status.