2015 (10) TMI 203 - AT - Customs

Mis-declaration of Quantity and Values Imposition of composite penalty Importer was alleged to have mis-declared excess quantities and also as to value of goods imported Investigation revealed that CHA have handled import document without proper authorization and as such aided and abetted importer in smuggling Commissioner (A) vide impugned order imposed composite penalty imposed on appellant under Section 112(a), 112 (b)(ii) and 114AA of Customs Act, 1962 was confirmed Held that - Admittedly appellant has only introduced importer and CHA It was urged that appellant is not responsible for acts of importer nor to be subjected to penalty for violation of law and/or attempted smuggling by importer and/or CHA There is no finding against appellant to aiding and abetting, save and except preparation of purported letter on behalf of Shipper on his computer Therefore composite penalty imposed on appellant set aside Decided in favour of Appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Composite penalty imposed on the appellant under Section 112(a), 112(b)(ii), and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Allegations of aiding and abetting in smuggling against the appellant.
3. Appeal against the penalty upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) and brought before the Tribunal.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Composite penalty imposed on the appellant under Section 112(a), 112(b)(ii), and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962.
The case involved the appellant appealing against the confirmation of a composite penalty imposed on him under various sections of the Customs Act. The penalty was imposed due to discrepancies in the imported goods, misdeclaration of quantities, and undervaluation. The appellant denied the allegations and stated that he had a limited role in introducing the importer and acting as a witness during the examination of the goods. The adjudicating authority found the importer and the appellant complicit in the smuggling activities, leading to the imposition of the composite penalty. However, the Tribunal, following a Division Bench ruling, held that a composite penalty could not be legally imposed. Therefore, the composite penalty on the appellant was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

Issue 2: Allegations of aiding and abetting in smuggling against the appellant.
The appellant was accused of aiding and abetting in smuggling activities based on his involvement in the import process and his alleged role in preparing a forged letter on behalf of the shipper. The appellant denied these allegations and argued that he had no knowledge of any misdeclaration or smuggling attempts by the importer. The Tribunal noted that apart from the preparation of the forged letter, there was no concrete evidence of the appellant aiding and abetting in smuggling. As a result, the Tribunal set aside the composite penalty imposed on the appellant.

Issue 3: Appeal against the penalty upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) and brought before the Tribunal.
The appellant, dissatisfied with the penalty upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), appealed to the Tribunal seeking relief. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments presented by both parties, found that there was no substantial evidence implicating the appellant in aiding and abetting smuggling activities. Additionally, the Tribunal followed a precedent set by a Division Bench ruling, which disallowed the imposition of a composite penalty. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the composite penalty imposed on the appellant.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant by setting aside the composite penalty imposed under various sections of the Customs Act, citing the lack of concrete evidence of aiding and abetting in smuggling activities and following a legal precedent disallowing composite penalties.