9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (12) TMI 35 - AT - CustomsPenalty u/s 112(a) - Import of 189.040 kgs of prohibited goods along with mixed brass scrap of 25.240 MT - Held that - There is no dispute that in this case the appellant who is an importer, has taken proper precaution while awarding the contract of supply of cargo of mixed brass scrap Honey. The adjudicating authority has specifically held that the importer has specifically instructed the supplier not to load any prohibited items and due precaution be taken at the load port. I also find that the adjudicating authority has also specifically recorded that the importer or CHA cannot be held responsible for presence of 189.040 kgs of prohibited goods in the consignment of 25.240 MT and he also specifically has recorded that there is no deliberate mis-declaration by the importer or CHA - Penalty imposed on the appellant is unwarranted and liable to be set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues: Penalty under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 for import of prohibited goods.
Analysis: The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD involved an appeal against the imposition of a penalty on the appellant under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 for importing 189.040 kgs of prohibited goods along with mixed brass scrap of 25.240 MT. The appellant's counsel pointed out that the prohibited goods were found in a consignment of mixed brass scrap and highlighted the adjudicating authority's findings. The adjudicating authority specifically noted that the importer had instructed the supplier to avoid loading prohibited items and had taken proper precautions at the load port. It was also observed that there was no deliberate mis-declaration by the importer or the Customs House Agent (CHA). The Tribunal, after considering the submissions and factual findings, concluded that there was no deliberate intention on the part of the appellant to import the prohibited goods. The Tribunal referred to a decision in the appellant's sister concern case to support its conclusion. Based on the factual findings and precedent, the Tribunal held that the penalty imposed on the appellant was unwarranted and set it aside. Consequently, the impugned order was overturned, and the appeal was allowed.
|
