2016 (12) TMI 1620 - AT - Customs

Penalty u/s 112 (b) of the CA, 1962 - smuggling of goods - case of appellant is that there is nothing on records to suggest that they had any knowledge of the vehicles being used in smuggling of goods - Held that - the drivers, Khalasi and lineman having had complete knowledge of carrying the contraband goods, did not come forward with any material in support of their contention. Shri Bijoy Ghosh had also not refuted the statement of the three co-noticees - the innocence of the appellants cannot be accepted, without any cogent reason - the said vehicles were used for carrying the contraband goods and the confiscation of the vehicles and redemption fine is justified. Penalty - Held that - Owners of the vehicles have not come forward with their bonafide. So, imposition of penalty is warranted - the quantum of penalty should be reduced taking into account the employment and livelihood. Appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Imposition of penalty under section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
1. Factual Background: The Customs officers received specific information about the smuggling of Betel Nuts of third country origin. The officers intercepted vehicles carrying the contraband goods and arrested the drivers and linemen involved in the smuggling operation. The adjudicating authority confiscated the seized goods and imposed penalties under section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962.

2. Contentions of the Appellants: The appellants, through their advocates, argued that there was no evidence to suggest their knowledge or involvement in the smuggling operation. They claimed innocence and stated that they had no link to the smuggled goods. The advocates also requested a reduction in penalties based on the social and financial status of the appellants.

3. Judicial Findings: The judicial member noted that the drivers, Khalasi, and linemen had complete knowledge of carrying the contraband goods, as they were appointed by the smuggling syndicate for safe transportation of the goods. The innocence of the appellants could not be accepted without cogent reasons. The confiscation of vehicles used in smuggling was justified, and the owners failed to prove their bonafide, warranting the imposition of penalties.

4. Decision and Penalty Reduction: Considering the facts and circumstances, the judicial member reduced the penalties imposed under section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The revised penalties for each appellant were specified, taking into account their roles in the smuggling operation and their financial situations.

5. Final Verdict: The confiscation of vehicles and imposition of Redemption Fine were upheld, and all appeals were disposed of accordingly. The judgment was pronounced on 19-12-2016 by Shri P.K. Choudhary, Judicial Member of the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT KOLKATA.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented by the parties, judicial findings, decision, and the final outcome of the case regarding the imposition of penalties under the Customs Act, 1962.