2015 (12) TMI 1557 - AT - Customs

Imposition of penalty - Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 courier shipment ownership not claimed LED LCD gold biscuit seizure confiscation section 111 of the act whether the provisions of section 111 (l) and 111(m) can be invoked, justifying imposition of penalty under section 112 of the Act? - Held that - no Bill of Entry with regard to the goods imported was filed. Since no Bill of Entry in the present case has been filed with regard to the imported goods and the provisions of clause (l) and (m) os section 111 of the act is applicable only in the eventuality where the entry has been made irregularly, the said statutory provisions cannot be invoked, justifying imposition of penalty under Section 112 of the Act penalty not imposed appeal allowed decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Imposition of penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Background and Seizure of Goods:
The case involves a dispute regarding the imposition of penalties on the appellants under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. The matter arose when a courier shipment from Dubai arrived at IGI Airport, New Delhi, containing 13 Television sets and a gold biscuit. The goods were seized, and penalties were imposed on the individuals associated with the courier company.

2. Reduction of Penalty by Commissioner (Appeals):
In an appeal against the Adjudication order, the Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the penalty on one individual but upheld the penalty on the other. This decision led to the present appeals being brought before the Tribunal for further consideration.

3. Legal Arguments - Appellant's Submission:
The appellant's advocate argued that Sections 111 (l) and 111 (m) were invoked for confiscation of goods, alleging mis-declaration and irregular import. He contended that since no Bill of Entry was filed, the provisions of clauses (l) and (m) of Section 111 cannot be applied to justify the penalties under Section 112.

4. Legal Arguments - Respondent's Submission:
On the contrary, the respondent's representative argued that the goods were improperly imported, justifying the application of Section 111 and the imposition of penalties under Section 112 of the Act.

5. Tribunal's Decision:
After hearing both sides and examining the records, the Tribunal focused on whether Sections 111 (l) and 111 (m) could be invoked to justify the penalties under Section 112. The Tribunal noted that since no Bill of Entry was filed for the imported goods, the provisions of clauses (l) and (m) of Section 111 could not be applied to impose penalties.

6. Statutory Interpretation:
The Tribunal analyzed the statutory provisions of Sections 111 (l) and 111 (m) which deal with mis-declaration of goods and values in the entry or declaration. It emphasized that these provisions are applicable when irregular entries are made, which was not the case due to the absence of a Bill of Entry in this instance.

7. Conclusion and Tribunal's Decision:
Based on the above analysis, the Tribunal found no merit in the imposition of penalties on the appellants. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were allowed in favor of the appellants.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the legal arguments, statutory provisions, and the Tribunal's reasoning leading to the decision to overturn the penalties imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.