2003 (1) TMI 331 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the penalty imposed on the appellant.
2. Appellant's role and responsibilities in the amendment of the licence.
3. Applicability of Section 112(a) of the Customs Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Penalty Imposed on the Appellant:
The appellant, a Licensing Assistant, was penalized Rs. 50,000/- for allegedly abetting in the illegal import by M/s. Best Fabrics. The tribunal found that the appellant had been suggesting the amendment of the description of the imported goods from "cotton fabrics" to "man-made fabrics" and had recommended that necessary evidence be produced. The appellant's actions were in line with the decisions and instructions of his supervising officer, the DDGFT, who directed that the licence be issued based on the Textile Commissioner's recommendation. The tribunal concluded that the appellant's actions were compliant with his duties and the instructions from his superiors, and thus, the penalty was not justified.

2. Appellant's Role and Responsibilities in the Amendment of the Licence:
The appellant's role was limited to putting up files and notes to senior officers indicating the requests of applicants. The tribunal noted that the appellant had no authority to include or exclude items in the licence and was merely following the orders of the DDGFT. The tribunal emphasized that the appellant was too junior in the hierarchy to make decisions on the contents of the licence and that the final decision rested with the higher officers. The tribunal found no evidence that the appellant had benefited from the inclusion of "man-made" in the licence or had any malicious intent.

3. Applicability of Section 112(a) of the Customs Act:
The tribunal highlighted that the imposition of a penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act requires the presence of mens rea (guilty mind). There was no evidence to suggest that the appellant had any such guilty mind or had dealt with the goods liable for confiscation. The tribunal clarified that Section 112(a) applies to those involved in the physical act of importation or preparation for import with knowledge of the goods' liability for confiscation. Since the appellant's actions were limited to internal notings and recommendations within the DGFT's office, and not physically connected with the importation, the provisions of Section 112(a) could not be invoked against him.

Conclusion:
The tribunal found that the appellant's actions were in accordance with his duties and the instructions from his superiors. There was no evidence of any wrongful intent or benefit derived by the appellant. Consequently, the penalty imposed under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief as per law.