2003 (4) TMI 443 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of goods under Customs Act, 1962
2. Imposition of personal penalties
3. Alleged illegal export of goods to Bangladesh

Issue 1: Confiscation of goods under Customs Act, 1962
The judgment pertains to the confiscation of 400 cartons of phensedyl cough linctus valued at Rs. 6,26,704 under Section 113(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The case involved an attempted export of the goods to Bangladesh, leading to the seizure by Customs Preventive Officers. The investigation revealed a trend of smuggling similar goods to Bangladesh from India. Statements from involved parties, including transport agency managers and partners of the firms, were recorded. The Commissioner, based on the evidence, held that the goods were intended for illegal export, leading to the absolute confiscation of the goods and imposition of personal penalties.

Issue 2: Imposition of personal penalties
Personal penalties were imposed on various individuals and entities involved in the case under Section 114 of the Customs Act. The penalties included amounts such as Rs. 50,000 on M/s. Zenith Drugs & Allied Agencies, Rs. 25,000 on Sri Uday Krishna Paul, and Rs. 25,000 on Sree Ma Drugs and its partners. The appellants contested the penalties, arguing against double penalization and unjustified separate penalties. The Tribunal upheld penalties on some entities while setting aside penalties on others, adjusting the quantum of penalties based on the arguments presented.

Issue 3: Alleged illegal export of goods to Bangladesh
The main issue revolved around whether the goods procured by Sree Ma Drugs were meant for illegal export to Bangladesh. The investigation revealed discrepancies, such as Sree Ma Drugs not being licensed by the Drug Controller to deal with the medicines in question. The appellants claimed to be appointed stockists by Zenith Drugs & Allied Agencies, but RPIL clarified that Sree Ma Drugs was not an authorized stockist. The mode of payment and the proximity of the seizure location to the border area indicated an attempt to smuggle the goods out of India. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, stating that the evidence pointed towards an intention to export the goods illegally to Bangladesh, justifying the confiscation.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the confiscation of goods, imposition of personal penalties, and the alleged illegal export of goods to Bangladesh under the Customs Act, 1962. The detailed analysis of the evidence and arguments presented by both sides led to a decision upholding the confiscation and penalties in part, based on the findings of the investigation and the provisions of the Customs Act.