9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Appeal against Order-in-Appeal upholding penalty imposition. 2. Purchase of Heavy Melting Scrap with explosive material. 3. Confiscation and penalty imposition. 4. Dispute over penalty liability. 5. Applicability of Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. Analysis: The appeal was lodged against the Order-in-Appeal that affirmed the penalty imposed on the appellants, who had procured Heavy Melting Scrap on High Sea Sale basis from a specific supplier. The scrap was subjected to 100% inspection due to its origin in Iran, revealing the presence of explosive material in two out of ten containers. Consequently, a show cause notice was issued for confiscation of the entire scrap, the explosive pieces, and penalty imposition. The Adjudicating Authority confiscated the explosives and the scrap, allowing redemption of the latter upon payment of a fine, while also penalizing the appellants. Upon appeal, the Commissioner set aside the scrap's confiscation but upheld the penalty, leading to this appeal. The appellant's representative argued that the High Sea Sale procurement meant they were unaware of the explosives in the containers, emphasizing that only a small quantity was found in two out of ten containers. Conversely, the Departmental Representative contended that the undisputed presence of explosives warranted penalty imposition on the appellants. Upon review, the Tribunal acknowledged the High Sea Sale basis of procurement, the completion of required documentation, and the thorough inspection process. Notably, the appellants did not contest the confiscation of the explosive pieces. The Tribunal found merit in the appellants' argument that their compliance with documentation requirements indicated no violation of the law, especially considering the absence of explosives in the sale agreement. Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 unwarranted and set it aside, ultimately allowing the appeal. In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, setting aside the penalty imposition based on the High Sea Sale procurement, proper documentation, and lack of explosive material indication in the sale agreement. The judgment highlighted the importance of compliance with legal requirements and the absence of evidence indicating the appellants' knowledge or involvement in the presence of explosives, leading to the penalty's reversal.
|
