9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Confirmation of penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 against the appellant for unauthorized importation of a car. 2. Involvement of the appellant in the importation and clearance of the car, and determination of liability for penalty. Issue 1: Confirmation of Penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 The appellant, Shri Alex Joseph, appealed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) confirming a penalty of Rs. One lakh under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962, for the unauthorized importation of a car by another individual, Velayudhan. The Tribunal upheld the order of confiscation but reduced the redemption fine to Rs. 3 lakhs and confirmed the penalty of Rs. 01 lakh imposed on Velayudhan. The Tribunal concluded that both Velayudhan and Alex were liable for penalty under Section 112 due to improper importation and mis-declaration, as established by the evidence presented. Issue 2: Involvement of the Appellant in Importation and Clearance of the Car The Addl. Commissioner found that the appellant, Alex Joseph, was the real owner of the car imported by Velayudhan, based on various statements and evidence. It was revealed that Alex had organized and arranged the import, arranged finance, and exported the car from abroad in Velayudhan's name. Statements from various individuals, including Velayudhan, Rahim, and others, indicated Alex's active involvement in the importation process. The Addl. Commissioner concluded that Alex, along with Velayudhan, had masterminded the unauthorized import, leading to liability under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the penalty on Alex, citing evidence that he masterminded the importation and abetted the offense. However, upon further examination, the Tribunal found contradictions in the statements relied upon. The statements of some witnesses did not align with the alleged role of Alex as the mastermind of the import. It was deemed improbable that a mastermind would openly involve himself in the clearance process. The Tribunal also noted that the ownership of the car was not relevant for customs clearance, and Alex's alleged interest in the car post-import did not establish knowledge of its liability for confiscation. The Tribunal concluded that the evidence against Alex was contradictory and unreliable, leading to the setting aside of the penalty imposed on him. In addition, the Tribunal criticized the Commissioner (Appeals) for confirming the orders hastily without proper notice procedures, indicating a pre-determined stance. Due to glaring contradictions in statements and investigative lacunae, the Tribunal decided to allow the appeal, setting aside the penalty on Alex Joseph with consequent relief as per law. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues of penalty confirmation and the appellant's involvement in the importation and clearance process, providing a comprehensive overview of the legal proceedings and conclusions reached by the Tribunal.
|
