2015 (5) TMI 965 - AT - Customs

Violation of condition of Section 112 (b) of the Customs Act, 1962 - No knowledge about removal of oil from barge and loading thereof into the tanker lorry - Held that - As the barge has gone out of control of the owner, it is left to the persons concerned, who operated the barge thereafter. Accordingly, there shall be no penalty on Smt. Josephine Sudarsan. However, so far as her husband Shri Tomy Corera is concerned, he was managing the barge and that was under his control even though that was let out. - barge was carrying fuel and that fuel was removed from barge for loading into the tanker lorry for the purpose of moving outside the Customs area. That brought Shri Tomy Corera into the fold of law to explain the reason why there was removal of fuel. When his explanation was unsatisfactory and without any logical reason, it was held that there was smuggling activity. Therefore, Shri Tomy Corera has to face penalty of ₹ 2,25,000 without any intervention to the order of the authority below - It is he who connected barge as well as the tanker to effect removal of the fuel from the barge. He could not detach himself from the offence alleged. Therefore, it is difficult to grant him any concession in penalty. - Appeal dismissed of.

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in compliance with stay order
2. Alleged violation of Customs Act, 1962
3. Liability of individuals involved in removal of oil from barge

Analysis:

Issue 1: Delay in compliance with stay order
The judgment addresses a delay of 12 days in compliance with a stay order issued to the petitioner. The notice was issued for the dismissal of the appeal due to non-compliance. However, the delay was condoned considering the difficulty expressed by the petitioner's counsel.

Issue 2: Alleged violation of Customs Act, 1962
The appeal revolves around the alleged violation of Section 112 (b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant, Smt. S. Josephine Sudarsan, claimed no involvement in the removal of oil from the barge, which was managed by her husband, Shri S. Tomy Corera. The Revenue contended that the removal of oil from the barge, without paying the Customs duty, was a premeditated act. The authority imposed penalties on both Smt. Josephine Sudarsan and Shri Tomy Corera for the violation.

Issue 3: Liability of individuals involved in removal of oil from barge
Regarding the appellant, Shri L. Anand Morais, it was argued that he was not directly involved in the transportation of oil from the barge to the tanker and should not be penalized. However, the Revenue claimed that Shri L. Anand Morais was the mastermind behind the offense, connecting the barge and the tanker for the removal of fuel. The judgment confirmed the penalty of &8377; 3,75,000 imposed on Shri L. Anand Morais, dismissing his appeal.

In conclusion, the appeal of Smt. Josephine Sudarsan was allowed, while the appeals of Shri S. Tomy Corera and Shri L. Anand Morais were dismissed. The judgment highlights the importance of compliance with legal orders, individual liabilities in Customs Act violations, and the consequences of involvement in smuggling activities.