2002 (11) TMI 503 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Penalty imposition under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 for not manifesting one container.
2. Applicability of Section 112 versus Section 117 for non-filing of manifest.
3. Interpretation of relevant provisions of the Customs Act regarding unmanifested goods and penal liability.

Issue 1: Penalty Imposition under Section 112
The appellant argued that the penalty of Rs. 1.60 lakh imposed under Section 112 was unjustified as there was no mens rea involved, it was a genuine error, no confiscation of goods occurred, and no penalty was imposed on any individual. The appellant contended that Section 117, not Section 112, was the correct provision for non-filing of manifest. The appellant cited relevant case laws to support their argument.

Issue 2: Applicability of Section 112 versus Section 117
The respondent, representing the Revenue, supported the penalty under Section 112, stating that since the container was not manifested, the Steamer Agents were liable for penalty under this section. It was also argued that Sections 32 and 34 of the Customs Act were violated, and Section 112 did not require mens rea for penalty imposition.

Issue 3: Interpretation of Customs Act Provisions
The judgment analyzed the Customs Act provisions, emphasizing the importance of proper Customs Control over imported cargo until clearance for home consumption. Sections 30, 32, 111(f), and 112 were discussed in detail. It was highlighted that unmanifested goods are liable for confiscation, and individuals involved in omitting to manifest such goods are subject to penal action under both clauses (a) and (b) of Section 112. The responsibility of Steamer Agents in filing manifests on behalf of the vessel's master and the consequences of non-compliance were explained.

The judgment concluded that the penalty imposed under Section 112 was justified, reducing it from Rs. 1.60 lakh to Rs. 25,000 based on the case facts and appellant's explanations. The decision affirmed the penalization of the appellants as agents of the vessel's master under both clauses (a) and (b) of Section 112. The appeal was ultimately rejected, with the pre-deposit amount adjusted accordingly.