2009 (12) TMI 818 - AT - Customs

Penalty u/s 114 of CA - import of prohibited item - Red Sanders Logs - Held that - The goods were stuffed in the container under the Central Excise supervision and the red sanders logs were substituted en route to the Chennai Port. It is intriguing to find that the seals were not tampered with and they were intact at the time of examination of the consignments. The impugned order does not contain any material to conclude that the exporter either knew that the goods were liable to confiscation or did something or omitted to do something which commission or omission tendered the goods liable to confiscation - penalty cannot be sustained - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appelalnt.

Summary

Issues:
1. Smuggling of red sanders logs in export consignment.
2. Confiscation of red sanders logs and trailers.
3. Imposition of penalties on exporters and individuals involved.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the interception of a container carrying red sanders logs disguised as "Calcite Powder" in an export consignment. The exporters were alleged to have facilitated the smuggling by not verifying the credentials of the involved individuals. The Commissioner held that the exporters indirectly aided in the smuggling by their acts of commission and omission. However, the judge noted that there was no evidence to show that the exporters' actions rendered the goods liable to confiscation under Section 113. The seals on the container were intact, and there was no proof that the exporters were aware of the substitution of goods. Thus, the penalty under Section 114 could not be sustained due to lack of evidence implicating the exporters directly in the smuggling.

2. The Commissioner had ordered the absolute confiscation of the red sanders logs and trailers used for transport, along with imposing penalties on the exporters and other individuals. The judge, while acknowledging the exporters' responsibility for the export consignments, emphasized that without concrete evidence linking them to the smuggling, penalizing them under Section 114 was unjustified. The absence of proof showing the exporters' knowledge or involvement in the substitution of goods during transportation led to the decision to set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal against the penalties imposed.

3. The judgment highlighted the importance of establishing a direct link between the actions of the exporters and the illegal activities to justify penalties under the Customs Act. While exporters bear responsibility for their consignments, penalizing them without concrete evidence of their involvement in the smuggling operation is unwarranted. The decision to overturn the penalties was based on the lack of proof implicating the exporters in the substitution of goods and the absence of evidence showing their awareness or participation in the illicit activities. By setting aside the penalties, the judge emphasized the necessity of establishing a clear connection between the actions of the accused parties and the illegal activities to warrant punitive measures under the law.