9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge against imposition of penalty under Section 114A of Customs Act, 1962. Analysis: The appellant's godown was searched, and foreign origin fabrics were found, leading to duty demand, confiscation of goods, and penalty imposition. Appellant claimed innocence, stating goods were purchased through a broker who misrepresented them as manufactured by a 100% EOU. The adjudicating authority confirmed demand, confiscation, and penalty. Appellant challenged only the penalty, not duty or confiscation. The appellant failed to produce documents proving licit possession of goods. The penalty was imposed under Section 114A, which appellant argued was inapplicable due to being misled about the goods' origin. Legal Considerations: The appellant's lack of documentary evidence for licit possession was noted. The seller's misrepresentation misled the appellant, impacting the penalty imposition. Although the wrong section was cited, penalty imposition under Section 112 was justified due to confiscation under Section 111. The penalty was deemed excessive considering the circumstances, leading to a reduction to Rs. 3.0 lacs. The appeal was partly allowed based on the appellant's potential misrepresentation. This judgment highlights the importance of due diligence in verifying the origin of goods, even when purchased through intermediaries. It also underscores the need for clarity in penalty imposition under relevant sections of the Customs Act, balancing legal provisions with the circumstances of the case.
|
