2011 (1) TMI 1081 - AT - Customs

Penalty under Section 112 of Customs Act - contention of appellant is that in the earlier adjudication order a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- was imposed which was increased to Rs. 1.00 lakh in the remand proceeding - Held that - As there is no omission or commission on the part of the present appellant which makes him liable for penalty under Section 112 of Customs Act. The impugned order in respect of the present appellant is set aside and appeal in this regard is allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against penalty imposed under Section 112 of Customs Act - Allegation of representing claimant of seized goods but failing to produce them before investigating agency - Mastermind behind purported claim - Liability for penalty under Section 112.

Analysis:

1. Issue of Penalty Imposition under Section 112 of Customs Act:
The appellant filed an appeal against the penalty of Rs. 1.00 Lakh imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act. Initially, a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- was imposed in an earlier adjudication order, which was increased to Rs. 1.00 Lakh in the remand proceeding. The provision of Section 112 states that a person involved in acts or omissions rendering goods liable to confiscation under Section 111 is subject to penalty. The adjudicating authority found the appellant to be the mastermind behind the claimed seized goods with wrongful intent, leading to the imposition of the penalty. However, the appellant contended that there was no omission or commission on their part to violate Section 112, hence challenging the penalty.

2. Allegation of Representing Claimant of Seized Goods:
The Revenue's contention was that the appellant acted as the mastermind behind the purported claim of seized goods with the intent of wrongful gain, playing the role of the claimant in disguise. The adjudicating authority found the appellant to be responsible for plotting the claimants but failing to produce them before the investigating agency or the adjudicating authority. This failure, along with intentional delay tactics, led to the conclusion that the appellant was indeed the mastermind behind the wrongful claims, justifying the penalty under Section 112.

3. Decision and Final Verdict:
Upon thorough analysis, the Tribunal found that there was no evidence of omission or commission on the part of the present appellant that would make them liable for penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act. Consequently, the impugned order imposing the penalty was set aside, and the appeal in this regard was allowed. The Tribunal's decision was based on the lack of substantial proof linking the appellant to the acts or omissions that would warrant the penalty under Section 112.

4. Conclusion:
In summary, the Tribunal's judgment revolved around the interpretation and application of Section 112 of the Customs Act concerning penalties for acts or omissions related to confiscated goods. The case highlighted the importance of substantial evidence and direct involvement in wrongful actions to justify the imposition of penalties under the Customs Act. Ultimately, the Tribunal's decision favored the appellant, setting aside the penalty based on the lack of concrete proof establishing their liability under Section 112.