2017 (3) TMI 1586 - AT - Customs

Penalty u/s 112(b) of the CA, 1962 - import of Vitrified Porcelain Tiles of China origin by misdeclaring the country of origin in the import documents - Held that - No facts or evidence to incriminate the appellants are forthcoming either in the notice or in the impugned order. Just a presumption cannot take the place of corroborative evidence - when there is no evidence put forth to support the allegations made against M/s. Seatrans Freight Agencies Pvt. Ltd. and Shri K.V. Srinivasan, their Joint Managing Director, the impugned order will not sustain - penalty set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Allegation of collusion in misdeclaration of country of origin and port of lading to avoid Anti-dumping Duty (ADD), imposition of penalties under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals).

Analysis:
1. Allegation of Collusion and Imposition of Penalties:
The case involved an investigation by DRI regarding the misdeclaration of the country of origin and port of lading to evade Anti-dumping Duty (ADD) on imported "Vitrified Porcelain Tiles." The appellants were accused of colluding with the importer in switching documents. Penalties of ?1,00,000 each were imposed under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the penalties, leading to the appeals before the forum.

2. Appellants' Defense and Arguments:
During the hearing, the appellants presented their defense. It was argued that M/s. Seatrans Freight Agencies Pvt. Ltd. functioned solely as freight forwarders in this case, not as steamer agents. They claimed to have no involvement in collusion with the importer and stated that they merely issued delivery orders based on documents provided by another party, M/s. Risetech Containers Lines Ltd. The appellants contended that the penalties imposed on them were unjustified.

3. Contentions and Counterarguments:
The respondent, represented by ld. AR Shri B. Balamurugan, supported the impugned order, emphasizing that the Master bill of lading listed M/s. Seatrans Freight Agencies Pvt. Ltd. as the consignee. It was alleged that the switching of documents by M/s. Risetech Containers Lines Ltd. could not have occurred without the appellants' involvement or connivance.

4. Judicial Analysis and Decision:
Upon review, the Tribunal found that while the importer and the Chinese exporter were involved in fraudulent activities, there was a lack of evidence linking the appellants to the collusion. The Tribunal noted that no concrete evidence was presented to incriminate M/s. Seatrans Freight Agencies Pvt. Ltd. and Shri K.V. Srinivasan, their Joint Managing Director. The Tribunal concluded that the presumption of collusion without corroborative evidence was insufficient to uphold the penalties. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and both appeals were allowed.

5. Final Verdict:
The Tribunal, after considering the arguments and evidence presented, ruled in favor of the appellants, M/s. Seatrans Freight Agencies Pvt. Ltd. and Shri K.V. Srinivasan, setting aside the penalties imposed on them under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The lack of substantial evidence linking the appellants to the fraudulent activities led to the decision in their favor.