2011 (6) TMI 487 - AT - Customs

Penalty - only reason for imposing penalties is that the said appellant has not taken the correct address of the consigner and consignee - appellants have clarified that the cargo is booked by their Chennai office and is delivered to consignee at Delhi after production of the original consignee receipt for which it may not be required by them to know the correct address of the consignor and consignee Held that - There is neither any such allegation against the appellant nor any evidence to the effect that they knew about the contents of the cargo or on any reasons to believe that the same were smuggled penalties are set aside and the appeals are allowed

Summary

Issues:
Imposition of penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 on M/s. New Amar Goods Carrier, their Chennai office, and Shri Jai Prakash Sharma for the seized goods.

Analysis:
The appeals before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi involved the imposition of penalties under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 on M/s. New Amar Goods Carrier, their Chennai office, and Shri Jai Prakash Sharma. The impugned order passed by the Commissioner imposed penalties of Rs. 50,000 each on M/s. New Amar Goods Carrier, their Chennai office, and Shri Jai Prakash Sharma. The case arose from the interception of a person outside the railway cargo clearing complex in Delhi who had taken delivery of cargo bags containing electronic goods of foreign origin. The customs officers seized the goods, suspecting illegal importation. The statement of Shri Jai Prakash Sharma revealed that the cargo was booked by a third party from Chennai without complete details of the consignor and consignee, as the goods were delivered based on the original bility issued by the Chennai office. The appellants contended that as carriers, they were not expected to inspect the contents of the cargo and were not aware of the ownership of the seized goods.

The Commissioner, in the impugned order, held the appellants guilty of contraventions of the Customs Act for booking the consignment without full details and imposed penalties under Section 112. However, the Tribunal noted that the appellants' claim of following trade practices of booking consignments without detailed inquiry into the goods' nature cannot be dismissed outright. The Tribunal emphasized that the imposition of penalties under Section 112 requires the concerned person to be aware or have reason to believe that the goods are liable to confiscation. In this case, there was no evidence to suggest that the appellants knew about the contents of the cargo or had any reason to believe it was smuggled. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner did not provide evidence reflecting any knowledge on the part of the appellants regarding the cargo's tainted character. The Tribunal also highlighted the lack of discussion on the role of Shri Jai Prakash Sharma in the adjudication process.

In light of the above considerations, the Tribunal extended the benefit of doubt to the appellants and set aside the imposed penalties on M/s. New Amar Goods Carrier, their Chennai office, and Shri Jai Prakash Sharma. The appeals were allowed with consequential relief to the appellants. The judgment was pronounced in open court on 1-6-2011 by Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (J) of the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi.