2010 (12) TMI 503 - HC - Customs

Confiscation of goods - Penalty - Customs House Agent - Clearing the goods against bogus/fictitious Advance Licenses and violation of the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 - The Tribunal has found that though there was some contravention on the part of the assessee in following the procedure envisaged under the Customs House Licensing Rules, there was no evidence on record to show any knowledge on the part of the respondent that the advance licences in question were forged - Hence, the Tribunal has held that there was no justifiable reason to impose the penalties on the respondent -The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order by Commissioner of Customs under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 regarding confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty. Applicability of mens rea for penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal against a consolidated order made by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding three appeals. The appeal was treated as being against one of the respondents, M/s. Vaz Forwarding Limited. The Commissioner of Customs challenged the Tribunal's order under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962, questioning the confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty. Two main questions were proposed: (1) Whether the confiscation of goods and penalty imposition on the respondent Customs House Agents (CHAs) was justified despite clearing goods against bogus licenses, and (2) Whether mens rea was essential for imposing penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, especially when goods were liable for confiscation under Section 111. The respondent, a Customs House Agent, was penalized by the Commissioner of Customs, but the penalty was set aside by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal, after evaluating the evidence, found no direct proof that the appellants were aware of the licenses being bogus and forged. While there were procedural contraventions, there was no evidence showing the appellants' knowledge of the licenses' fraudulent nature. The officers cleared the goods against these licenses, and only later investigations revealed their illegitimacy. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that there was no justification for imposing penalties on the appellants and set them aside. The Tribunal's decision was based on factual findings, and there was no legal basis for interference.

Ultimately, the High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Tribunal's decision. The Court found that the Tribunal's conclusion, based on factual findings, was reasonable and did not raise any legal questions, let alone substantial ones. Therefore, the appeal was rejected, affirming the Tribunal's decision in favor of the respondent.