2013 (11) TMI 1428 - AT - Customs

Import of consignment of consumer goods and household items from UAE - Mis declaration of goods - Held that - the appellant is only an employee of the CHA firm and admittedly, it has not been controverted that he had assisted the importer for a consideration of Rs. 10,000/-. Further, the appellant also stated during the hearing that at present, he is working in a DTP company as an employee for a salary of Rs. 8,000/- per month. Having regard to all these circumstances, a lenient treatment as regards penalty is warranted - Penalty reduced - Decided partly in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Mis-declaration of imported goods, penalty imposition on appellant, retraction of statement, involvement in illegal activities, leniency in penalty imposition.

Analysis:
The case involved an importer, M/s Pride International Trading, who was found mis-declaring a consignment of goods imported from UAE. The Customs seal of the container was broken, revealing excess goods valued significantly higher than the declared amount. An investigation ensued, leading to penalties imposed on various individuals, including the appellant, who was a Manager of a CHA firm. The appellant contested the allegations, claiming coercion during statement recording and denying involvement in the illegal removal of goods from the container.

The appellant requested cross-examination of witnesses and relevant documents, which were not provided to him. He cited an RTI application seeking the import application, which the port trust claimed not to possess. The appellant disassociated himself from the plan to remove goods illegally and sought the penalty's revocation. The Authorized Representative highlighted the appellant's retracted statement, alleging his role in facilitating the illegal removal of goods from the container.

The Tribunal considered both parties' submissions and noted the appellant's retracted statement during the reply to the show-cause notice. The statement detailed the appellant's involvement in a plan to remove undeclared goods from the container with the help of others. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's position as a Manager of the CHA firm, coupled with the evidence of undeclared goods and broken container seal, indicated his complicity in the illegal activities.

Despite the substantial penalty imposed on the appellant and the significant value of the goods involved, the Tribunal acknowledged his limited role and financial circumstances. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to reduce the penalty from Rs. 2 lakhs to Rs. 20,000, considering the appellant's employment status and the overall circumstances. The judgment was pronounced in open court, modifying the penalty amount or rejecting the appeal based on the revised penalty imposition.