9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (10) TMI 799 - AT - CustomsPenalty u/s 112 - Restriction on import - radioactive nature of the goods - Held that - importing firm had abandoned the goods in question in April-August, 1996 by their various acts of not getting the goods cleared for home consumption and not opposing the auction sale by the Port Trust and by returning the documents of title to the supplier through their Bankers. It cannot be said that the customs authorities had no notice of any of these facts for about 9 months from June, 1996 to March, 1997. It is further observed that as the appellant firm had been dealing in the goods not for the first time, it cannot be accepted that they had no knowledge of the radioactive nature of the goods in question. In this view of the matter, I uphold the impugned order except the amount of penalty sustained at ₹ 5 lakhs on the firm and reduce it to ₹ 2,00,000 - Decided partly in favour of Revenue.
Issues:
1. Penalty imposed on the ex-partner and firm under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. Confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty due to alleged import of radioactive goods. 3. Abandonment of goods under Section 23 of the Customs Act. Issue 1: Penalty Imposed on Ex-Partner and Firm The case involved cross-appeals arising from an Order-in-Appeal where a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs on the ex-partner and a reduced penalty on the firm under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, were contested. The appellant firm appealed against the penalty, while the Revenue appealed against the reduction of penalty on the firm and dropping of penalty on the ex-partner. The Tribunal took up the appeals together due to common facts and legal issues. Issue 2: Confiscation of Goods and Penalty for Import of Radioactive Goods The appellant firm was involved in importing Thorium Nitrite powder which was found to be radioactive. The Customs department seized the goods and issued a show-cause notice for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Act. The Joint Commissioner of Customs imposed a penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs on the firm and Rs. 5 lakhs on the ex-partner under Section 112(a). The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the confiscation and upheld the penalty, citing the firm's prior knowledge of the goods' nature. Issue 3: Abandonment of Goods under Section 23 of the Customs Act The appellant argued that they had abandoned the goods before clearance for home consumption by not opposing the auction sale and returning documents to the supplier's bank. They relied on Section 23, which allows abandonment before clearance. The Tribunal found that the firm had indeed abandoned the goods and reduced the penalty on the firm from Rs. 5 lakhs to Rs. 2,00,000, considering the circumstances and actions taken by the appellant. In conclusion, the Tribunal partially allowed the appeal of the importing firm by reducing the penalty imposed on them. The appeals of the Revenue were dismissed, and the judgment was pronounced on 8th May 2014 by Anil Choudhary, J.
|
