9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Imposition of penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act on a steamer agent for non-declaration of goods seized by Customs authorities. Analysis: 1. Issue of Penalty Imposition: The appeal involved the imposition of a penalty of Rs. 50,000 under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act on a steamer agent for the non-declaration of seized goods. The Customs authorities had seized timber, pulses, whisky, and other goods from a vessel at Tuticorin port. The steamer agent claimed the non-declaration was due to oversight, while the captain mentioned the death of a crew member as a reason for not attending to the matter. The Commissioner ordered confiscation of goods and imposed the penalty, leading to the appeal. 2. Arguments and Legal Analysis: The appellant's counsel argued that there was no mens rea (criminal intent) found against the appellant, and the non-declaration was due to negligence, not intention. Citing the judgment in Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa, it was contended that no penalty should be imposed for a technical or venial breach of law. The Tribunal noted that the department failed to prove any intention on the part of the steamer agent to sell the cargo in the local market, and no elements of Section 112(a) were established against the appellant. Therefore, based on the findings, it was concluded that no penalty should be imposed. 3. Decision and Ruling: The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, emphasizing that no penalty was justified based on the circumstances and legal analysis presented. The operative part of the order was pronounced in open court on 29-3-2007, thereby overturning the penalty imposed on the steamer agent for the non-declaration of goods seized by Customs authorities at Tuticorin port. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, legal arguments, and the ultimate decision made by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Chennai regarding the penalty imposed on the steamer agent under the Customs Act.
|
