9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (3) TMI 509 - AT - CustomsPenalty u/s 112(a) - Confiscation of goods of importer - Held that - Importer has approached the Settlement Commission and got settled the case thereon. Following on the decisions in the cases of Colombowala (2007 (7) TMI 514 - CESTAT, MUMBAI) and Mukesh Garg (2012 (8) TMI 721 - DELHI HIGH COURT), wherein it has been held that if the case against the main party has been settled, I hold that the penalty on the appellant is not imposable. Therefore, I set aside the impugned order - decided in favour of appellant.
Issues: Penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 imposed by the Commissioner (Appeals).
Analysis: Issue 1: Penalty Imposition The appellant appealed against an order imposing a penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant, a Customs House Agent (CHA), was involved in the importation of a car, leading to investigations and a proposal for a penalty. However, the adjudicating authority did not impose any penalty on the appellant. The appellant challenged this decision. Issue 2: Settlement Commission's Decision During the proceedings, it was revealed that the importer had approached the Settlement Commission and settled the matter. The Settlement Commission confirmed the demand of differential duty and interest against the main importer but dropped the penalty. The appellant argued that based on precedents like S.K. Colombowala and Mukesh Garg cases, the penalty on the appellant should not be imposed. Issue 3: Tribunal's Decision Upon reviewing the case and considering the Settlement Commission's decision and relevant legal precedents, the Tribunal found that since the case against the main party (importer) had been settled with no penalty imposed, the penalty on the appellant (CHA) was not justifiable. Citing the decisions in the Colombowala and Mukesh Garg cases, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal with consequential relief, if any. In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 imposed by the Commissioner (Appeals) was not applicable in this case due to the settlement reached by the main importer with the Settlement Commission. The decision was based on legal precedents and principles of fairness in such matters.
|
