1985 (5) TMI 238 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Applicability of penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act.
2. Compliance with provisions of Section 11L of the Customs Act.
3. Requirement of separate show cause notices for each transaction.
4. Conduct of enquiry by a proper officer.
5. Statutory presumption under Section 11M of the Act.
6. Reduction of penalty.

Analysis:

1. The issue of the applicability of the penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act was raised by the appellant, contending that Section 117 should apply instead. The Tribunal held that since the appellant did not have precise particulars about the persons to whom silver was sold, invoking the statutory presumption under Section 11M was justified. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's argument and upheld the imposition of the penalty under Section 114.

2. Compliance with the provisions of Section 11L of the Customs Act was raised as the appellant failed to provide precise particulars of the buyers of silver as required by law. The Tribunal found that the appellant did not comply with the provisions, leading to the invocation of the statutory presumption under Section 11M, which in turn triggered the penalty under Section 114.

3. The issue of whether separate show cause notices should have been issued for each transaction of sale was raised by the appellant. The Tribunal ruled that since the scrutiny of the appellant's accounts took place on a specific date, separate show cause notices for each transaction were not necessary under the law.

4. The appellant argued that the enquiry was not conducted by a proper officer as required by Section 11M of the Act. The Tribunal dismissed this argument, stating that the adjudication order was passed by the Additional Collector, who was authorized to conduct such proceedings. The Tribunal highlighted that general instructions allowed Inspectors to conduct investigations and enquiries as per the Act.

5. The Tribunal emphasized the statutory presumption under Section 11M of the Act, which holds that if the buyer is not traceable, it is presumed that the goods were illegally exported. The Tribunal found that the appellant did not rebut this presumption satisfactorily, leading to the imposition of the penalty under Section 114.

6. Finally, the appellant requested a reduction in the penalty, citing lack of past offenses and seeking leniency. The Tribunal considered the appellant's background and reduced the penalty from Rs. 25,000 to Rs. 20,000. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, except for the modification in the penalty amount.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment addresses all the issues raised in the case, providing a detailed insight into the Tribunal's reasoning and decision-making process.