2011 (2) TMI 1075 - AT - Customs

Penalty - Commissioner had confiscated a consignment of what was declared as glass stone-beads in a bill of entry filed by the respondent under Section 111(d) & (m) of the Customs Act on the ground that the goods imported by the company was actually jewellery stones which were misdeclared as glass stone-beads & that no import licence was produced by them and that the value of the goods had also been misdeclared - Held that - As it is yet to be shown that the respondent wanted to clear the goods for home consumption in a fraudulent manner. What is disclosed from the records is that he wanted to re-export the goods albeit belatedly. In the circumstances the reason stated by the learned Commissioner for not imposing a penalty on the respondent under Section 112 has not been rebutted. In the result the appeal gets dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Imposition of penalty on the respondent under Section 112 of the Customs Act.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the department against the Commissioner's order where no penalty was imposed on the respondent. The Commissioner had confiscated a consignment declared as 'glass stone-beads' but found to be jewellery stones. The value of the goods was enhanced significantly. However, the Commissioner refrained from imposing a penalty on the respondent under Section 112 of the Act. The appellant argued that penalty should have been imposed as the respondent was concerned with the goods and took actions related to them. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner found the respondent was not actually concerned with importing the goods and thus not liable for penalty under Section 112(a). The appellant claimed the respondent was involved, citing the bill of lading naming the respondent as consignee and payment of Port Trust charges. However, the Tribunal found insufficient evidence to attribute mens rea to the respondent, as the bill of entry was for re-export, not clearance for home consumption. The Tribunal concluded that the reason for not imposing a penalty on the respondent under Section 112 remained valid, and thus dismissed the appeal.