9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Duty demand for excess import and illegal removal of garlic. 2. Imposition of penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962. 3. Absence of direction for appropriation of duty demand. 4. Non-termination of appointment of Custodian. 5. Non-de-notification of CFS area as Customs area. Analysis: 1. The Commissioner of Customs dropped the duty demand for excess import and illegal removal of garlic from M/s. Binny Ltd. CFS but imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Revenue contested the absence of any direction for appropriation of the duty demand towards the duty payable on the entire quantity of garlic and the non-termination of M/s. Binny Ltd.'s appointment as Custodian and the non-de-notification of the CFS area as Customs area. 2. The Tribunal noted that the duty on the entire quantity, including the excess garlic, had been paid at the time of clearance for import, and this amount would be appropriated towards the duty payable. The Commissioner found that the top management of M/s. Binny Ltd. was not involved in the illegal removal of garlic, which was carried out by specific individuals without the knowledge of senior officers. The removal occurred after working hours on a weekend, and only two lower-level employees were implicated. Based on these findings, the imposition of a penalty was deemed sufficient, and the Tribunal declined to interfere with the Commissioner's decision, except regarding the appropriation of the duty amount paid. 3. The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed on M/s. Binny Ltd. but rejected the appeal due to the absence of evidence implicating senior management in the illegal activity. The decision not to terminate the appointment of M/s. Binny Ltd. as Custodian and not to de-notify the CFS area as Customs area was supported by the circumstances of the case, where only lower-level employees were involved in the wrongdoing without the knowledge or involvement of higher-ranking officials. 4. The judgment emphasized that the penalty imposed was appropriate given the specific circumstances of the case, where the responsibility for the illegal removal of garlic fell on individual employees rather than the company's senior management. The Tribunal's decision highlighted the importance of considering the level of involvement and knowledge of individuals in cases of misconduct when determining penalties and administrative actions against entities involved in customs violations.
|
