2015 (6) TMI 1117 - AT - Customs

Imposition of penalty u/s 114(iii) of the CA, 1962 - case of appellant is that the findings recorded by the adjudicating authority has no basis and there is nothing on record to implicate the appellant in any manner which attracts penal provisions - Held that - the findings as recorded by the adjudicating authority are not substantiated in anyway. There is no statement implicating the appellant nor it is brought on record that Shri Sushil Dhuri is one of the employees of the appellant. In the absence of any other evidence to implicate the appellant herein, the penalty imposed on him is not in consonance with the law - penalty set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Penalty imposed under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962
2. Impugned order alleging involvement in filing incorrect shipping bills
3. Lack of evidence connecting the appellant with the actions of main Noticee
4. Findings of the adjudicating authority not substantiated

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI was against an Order-in-Original imposing a penalty on the appellant under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant contested the penalty, arguing that the findings recorded by the adjudicating authority were incorrect and lacked a basis. The appellant highlighted that there was no evidence to implicate them in any activity attracting penal provisions. The appellant also pointed out that the statements recorded by the Customs authorities did not connect them to any wrongdoing related to filing incorrect shipping bills.

Upon considering the submissions and examining the records, the Tribunal found multiple reasons to set aside the impugned order. Firstly, the statements recorded from the appellant indicated a denial of involvement in filing incorrect shipping bills, with no indication that they were connected to the actions of the main Noticee. Secondly, there was a lack of evidence linking the appellant to any wrongdoing, especially in comparison to the actions of other involved parties. The adjudicating authority's findings regarding the involvement of another entity were deemed unsubstantiated and not applicable to the appellant.

The Tribunal concluded that the penalty imposed on the appellant was incorrect and not supported by the law. Therefore, the findings of the adjudicating authority regarding the appellant were set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant. The decision highlighted the importance of substantiated evidence and proper connection to establish liability under the Customs Act, 1962.