2009 (10) TMI 803 - AT - Customs

Confiscation of goods - penalty - evidence - Held that - There is no evidence against the appellants regarding their involvement in the substitution of the cargo or tampering of the seal. In the circumstances, we confirm our prima facie view, set aside the confiscation of the container and the penalty imposed on M/s. Caravel Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd. - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Waiver of predeposit and stay of recovery of penalties imposed on exporter and steamer agent.
2. Liability of exporter and steamer agent in the smuggling attempt.
3. Involvement of ICD in the movement of cargo.
4. Role of steamer agent in the substitution of cargo and tampering of seals.

Analysis:
1. The appellants, an exporter and a steamer agent, sought waiver of predeposit and stay of recovery of penalties imposed on them for their alleged involvement in a smuggling attempt where red sanders logs were substituted for export goods. The Commissioner had confiscated the logs and imposed penalties on the appellants under the Customs Act, 1962. The appellants argued that they were not responsible once the goods were sealed and entrusted to others for transport. The Tribunal found that the appellants had not actively participated in rendering the seized goods liable for confiscation. Therefore, the predeposit of penalties was waived and the recovery stayed until the appeals were disposed of.

2. The Commissioner had noted that the exporter and steamer agent had not acted responsibly in entrusting the goods to unknown persons for transport. However, it was not established that they were aware of the substitution of goods. The Tribunal observed that the findings against the appellants were not sufficient to hold them liable for the smuggling attempt. The exporter was granted the benefit of doubt, and the penalty imposed on them was set aside. Similarly, the steamer agent's involvement in the substitution of cargo or tampering of seals was not proven, leading to the confiscation of the container being set aside.

3. The issue of the Inland Container Depot's (ICD) role in the movement of cargo was raised during the proceedings. It was argued that the ICD, as the custodian, should have been responsible for the safe transport of goods from the ICD to the gateway port. The Tribunal noted that the ICD had not been issued a show cause notice and that the involvement of certain individuals enroute to Chennai raised questions about the custodian's responsibilities. In the absence of concrete evidence implicating the exporter, the Tribunal confirmed its view and set aside the penalty imposed on the exporter.

4. The steamer agent, represented by an advocate, contended that they were not involved in arranging the transport or the substitution of cargo. They claimed that they had only provided the container for legitimate cargo export and were not responsible for the tampering of seals. The Tribunal agreed with this argument, finding no evidence of the steamer agent's involvement in the smuggling attempt. Consequently, the confiscation of the container and the penalty imposed on the steamer agent were set aside.

In conclusion, the Tribunal granted relief to the appellants by waiving predeposit, setting aside penalties, and confirming the benefit of doubt in favor of the exporter and steamer agent due to insufficient evidence of their active involvement in the smuggling attempt.