2006 (11) TMI 94 - AT - Customs

Penalty Alleged that (i) Clandestine removal by an EOU (ii) Clandestine removed goods received by a person with the assistance of a broker; and accordingly imposed penalty on them Held that no evidence presented which supported the allegation and penalty set aside

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against imposition of penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the Department challenging the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise & Customs, Surat-II, which set aside the penalty imposed on the respondents under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The respondents were co-noticees in a case involving a 100% E.O.U. allegedly engaged in clandestinely removing imported goods from their Bonded Warehouse. The Commissioner (Appeals) found no evidence to support the imposition of penalties on the respondents and set them aside after considering the evidence presented against them.

The Tribunal heard both sides and allowed the Condonation of Delay Application filed by the Revenue. It was noted that Respondent No. 2 had allegedly received a part of the clandestinely removed goods without proper documentation through a broker. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) concluded that there was no proof that the respondents were aware of the goods' status or that they were liable to confiscation. The lack of evidence showing the respondents' knowledge regarding the duty status of the goods led to the rejection of the Departmental Appeal.

Upon reviewing the case records and submissions, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s findings that there was no indication that the respondents were aware of the Customs provisions being violated. The absence of grounds to challenge the Commissioner's decision resulted in the rejection of the Departmental Appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the penalty imposed on the respondents was set aside.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) to set aside the penalties imposed on the respondents under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The lack of evidence proving the respondents' knowledge of the duty status of the goods and the absence of grounds to challenge the Commissioner's findings led to the rejection of the Departmental Appeal.