9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Interpretation of liability for penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 based on admissions in statements recorded u/s 108 and sufficiency of evidence for penalty imposition on acts of omissions and commissions.
Issue 1: Liability for penalty under Section 112 The Tribunal considered the case of the respondent in light of statements recorded u/s 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. It was noted that there was no material suggesting the sale of an advance license to the appellant by Shri Shashi Bhushan. The Tribunal found that the appellant denied purchasing any license from Shri Shashi Bhushan and provided evidence of receipt of sale consideration under a high seas sale contract. It was concluded that there was no evidence connecting the respondent with the offense for penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act. Issue 2: Sufficiency of evidence for penalty imposition The Tribunal examined whether there was sufficient evidence to impose a penalty on the respondent for various acts of omissions and commissions, making the goods liable for confiscation. It was observed that the fraud regarding advance licenses was committed by Shri Shashi Bhushan with the help of a license broker, Shri Mahesh Ganatra. The breach of conditions of the advance licenses was attributed to Shri Shashi Bhushan, not the appellant. The Tribunal found no connivance between the appellant and Shri Shashi Bhushan for fraud on the Customs Authorities. The appeal was dismissed at the admission stage due to the lack of evidence connecting the respondent with the offense for penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act.
|
