2012 (11) TMI 407 - AT - Customs

Penalty - collusion - proceedings were initiated against an exporter, M/s. Radhika Exports, who had exported goods to Bangladesh under Bills of Export and claimed the drawback in contravention of the provisions of the Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules alleged that appellant had allowed clearance of the said goods for exportation - Held that - There was no evidence that Appellant was involved in abetting the Proprietor of M/s. Radhika Exports to avail duty drawback fraudulently - Department could also not produce any evidence to show that there was any collusion between the present Appellant and the exporter - even in the adjudication order, the only finding is that the supervisory officer cannot escape his liability. There is no evidence on record to show that there is any collusion between the present respondents and the exporter - penalty imposed on the Appellant is not sustainable

Summary

Issues:
Penalty imposed under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 for contravention of provisions of Section 50(2) and Section 75 without specifying contravened provisions in the show cause notice.

Analysis:
The Appellant filed an Appeal against the penalty imposed under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 for contravention of provisions of Section 50(2) and Section 75 without clear specification in the show cause notice. The Commissioner had penalized the Appellant for allowing clearance of goods for exportation, alleging involvement in abetting duty drawback fraud. However, the Appellant argued that he was responsible for documentation, not physical examination of goods. The Tribunal noted that the show cause notice did not specify the contravened provisions, rendering the penalty beyond its scope. The relevant provisions of Section 50(2) were examined, clarifying they pertain to documentation, not physical examination. The Tribunal found no evidence of collusion between the Appellant and the exporter, citing a previous case where lack of evidence led to dismissal of appeals. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the penalty, deeming it unsustainable based on lack of evidence and improper specification in the show cause notice.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented by the parties, relevant legal provisions, and the Tribunal's reasoning leading to the decision to set aside the penalty imposed on the Appellant.