2007 (8) TMI 142 - AT - Customs

Penalty Alleged that appellant (Courier agency) help the importer to violate the Exim policy and accordingly liable for penalty When there is no incriminating evidence found against the appellant penalty can t imposable Penalty deposited vide stay order shall be returned

Summary

Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty under Sec. 112(a) & (b) of the Customs Act, 1962 on a courier company for aiding an importer to violate the EXIM Policy.
2. Dispute regarding the liability of the courier company versus the actual importer to pay duty.
3. Applicability of past conduct of the importer in determining penalty on the courier company.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was against a penalty imposed on a courier company for aiding an importer to violate the EXIM Policy. The appellant courier company had cleared goods for an importer, and incriminating documents were seized from the importer's premises. The investigation revealed discrepancies in values and weights of the consignment, leading to an inflated amount recovered by the appellants. The penalty was imposed under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act for facilitating the importer's violation of the EXIM Policy.

2. The appellant's counsel argued that the duty payment responsibility lies with the actual importer, not the courier company acting as clearing agents. It was highlighted that the importer had declared the goods, paid duty, and had previous import clearances. Citing a precedent, it was contended that penalty on the courier company was not warranted based on the importer's acknowledgment and past conduct, as per the case law of Collector of Customs v. Trivandrum Rubber Works.

3. The Commissioner had imposed the penalty on the appellants, stating they aided the importers in violating the EXIM policy. However, the Tribunal, referencing a previous case, held that penalties were not applicable to courier agency staff in the absence of incriminating evidence. The Tribunal emphasized that the past conduct of the importer should not influence penalties on the courier company. Consequently, the penalty on the appellant was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief, directing the return of the penalty amount deposited.

In conclusion, the judgment involved a detailed analysis of the imposition of penalties on a courier company for assisting an importer in violating the EXIM Policy. The dispute over duty payment liability and the relevance of the importer's past conduct in determining penalties were thoroughly examined, leading to the setting aside of the penalty on the appellant based on legal precedents and principles.