2007 (9) TMI 69 - AT - Customs

Penalty(Custom) Penalty imposed u/s112 of CA,1962 on appellant on the ground that appellant assisted in selling of mulberry silk imported of the third party which imported in contravention of law but appellant contended that they had no knowledge about this Held penalty not imposable and set aside

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to imposition of penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 for assisting in selling mulberry raw silk imported duty-free against advance licenses.

Analysis:
The appellant contested the penalty of Rs. 10,00,000 imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962, alleging that he assisted in selling raw silk imported duty-free in violation of Customs Notification 204/92 and the Import-Export Policy. The appellant sold 3,000 kgs of raw silk on commission basis for the importer, with payment received in cash by Jesal Kumar Exports. Notably, no sale invoices were raised due to unfulfilled export obligations, as explained by Shri Kantilal Rathod. The Tribunal observed that there was no evidence to suggest that the appellant had knowledge at the time of sale that the goods were being sold in contravention of regulations. Importantly, it was not established that the appellant was aware of the export obligation status, which would render the raw silk liable to confiscation. Shri Kantilal Rathod also did not attribute any such knowledge to the appellant. Consequently, the Tribunal held that Section 112(b) requirements, necessitating knowledge or reason to believe goods were liable to confiscation, were not met in this case. Therefore, the penalty was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

This judgment highlights the importance of establishing the accused's knowledge or reason to believe that goods were being dealt with in contravention of regulations to impose penalties under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal emphasized that mere involvement in the sale of goods is not sufficient to attract penalties; rather, there must be a demonstrated awareness of the illegal nature of the transaction. The decision underscores the significance of clear evidence linking the accused to the unlawful activity, especially concerning the specific conditions that would render goods liable to confiscation. In this case, the lack of proof regarding the appellant's knowledge of the export obligation status was pivotal in determining the outcome of the appeal and setting aside the penalty. Consequently, this judgment serves as a precedent for cases involving penalties under Section 112, emphasizing the necessity of establishing the accused's culpable knowledge or belief in the context of customs violations.