2016 (12) TMI 1641 - AT - Customs

Penalty u/s 112(a) of the CA, 1962 - case of appellant is that once the goods sold to BPCL in line with OCL directives to make use of the subject imported SKO meant for PDS supply, the IOCL being a canalising agent only cannot be made responsible and liable to penalty u/s 112(a) as such and the same is not tenable - Held that - it is evident that the M/s.IOCL sold the goods to BPCL in compliance of the conditions of the Notification. It is noted that M/s.IOCL had already paid the duty, which was appropriated by the adjudicating authority. In such situation, the imposition of penalty on the appellant is in my view, unjustified - penalties set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Liability for payment of duty and penalties on imported goods handed over to another entity.
2. Imposition of penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the appellant.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The case involved M/s. Indian Oil Corporation (IOCL) importing Superior Kerosene Oil (SKO) as the sole canalising agent for crude petroleum products. IOCL handed over the SKO to Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. (BPCL) for ultimate sale through the Public Distribution System (PDS) as per the Oil Coordination Committee's directives. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed a demand on IOCL and imposed penalties on both IOCL and BPCL. The issue was whether IOCL was liable for the penalties when BPCL was the entity responsible for the imported goods' use and sale through PDS.

2. The appellant argued that BPCL was solely responsible for duty payment, interest, and penalties as they were aware of the conditions of the Customs exemption notification regarding the SKO. The representative contended that IOCL, as a canalising agent, should not be held liable for penalties under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant maintained that there was no omission or commission on their part to warrant such penalties.

3. The respondent supported the Adjudicating Authority's findings, citing precedents like Shiv kripa Ispat Pvt. Ltd. and Commr. of Customs, Amritsar to justify the penalties imposed on IOCL. However, the Tribunal found no evidence that IOCL had knowledge of BPCL selling the SKO for purposes other than PDS. It was observed that IOCL had paid the duty as required, and therefore, penalizing IOCL was deemed unjustified.

4. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the penalties imposed on IOCL, allowing the appeal filed by the appellant to that extent. The judgment was pronounced on 07.12.2016 by Shri P.K. Choudhary, Judicial Member of the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT KOLKATA.