2015 (8) TMI 1171 - HC - Customs

Attempt to export goods improperly Imposition of Penalty Respondent was alleged to have filed shipping documents to export red sanders, which was prohibited, under guise of natural slate stone Tribunal vide impugned order set aside order of Adjudicating Authority imposing penalty Whether Tribunal was justified in setting aside penalty imposed under Section 114 of Customs Act Held that - seen from order of Tribunal that finding of Tribunal was that there was no material evidence or finding by Adjudicating Authority to come to conclusion that first respondent was having knowledge of export of goods improperly Tribunal further held that there was no evidence to indicate that first respondent had knowledge of export of red sanders in consignment in guise of natural slate stone and that provisions of Sec.114 of the Customs Act was not attracted In view of finding of Tribunal, no interfere was required Decided in favour of Assesse.

Summary

Issues:
- Whether the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the penalty imposed under Section 114 of the Customs Act.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the Tribunal's order dated 12.09.2008. The substantial question of law raised was whether the Tribunal was correct in deleting the penalty imposed on the respondent due to lack of evidence proving guilty mind. The appellant contended that penalty should be mandatory based on previous judgments, but the Court reframed the question to focus on the justification of setting aside the penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act.

2. The facts of the case revealed that the respondent was accused of exporting red sanders under the guise of natural slate stone. The Adjudicating Authority imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000 on the respondent, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). However, the Tribunal overturned the penalty, stating that there was no evidence of the respondent's knowledge or intention regarding the export of prohibited goods. The Tribunal suggested that any failures might be covered under Customs House Agents' Regulations.

3. The Court noted that the Tribunal's finding was based on the lack of material evidence showing the respondent's knowledge of the improper export. The Tribunal concluded that Section 114 of the Customs Act was not applicable, and the Customs House Agent Regulation Rules might be more appropriate. As the Tribunal is the final fact-finding authority, the Court declined to interfere with its decision, ruling in favor of the respondent and dismissing the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal without costs.