2007 (7) TMI 126 - AT - Customs

Penalty The appellant had exported the restricted goods for which specific license is required without procuring specific license and penalty imposed on him by OA Tribunal set aside the order of OA after finding sufficient reason on part of appellant

Summary

Issues: Export of goods without required license, imposition of penalty under Section 114(1) of the Customs Act.

Issue 1: Export of goods without required license
The case involved the export of goods classified under the wrong ITHS Code, leading to the need for a license under the SCOMET List. The appellants exported goods covered under category 3D001 (ii) of the SCOMET List without the necessary license, as revealed by investigations post-export. The DGFT had notified the goods under the restricted list on 1-4-2002, while the export took place on 16-4-2002. The appellants argued that they were unaware of the Export Policy changes, which the Original Authority found to be genuine. The Customs officer at the time was also unaware of the policy. The Original Authority imposed a penalty under Section 114(1) of the Customs Act, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals).

Issue 2: Imposition of penalty under Section 114(1) of the Customs Act
The Tribunal considered the circumstances surrounding the export, noting the gap between the issuance of the DGFT Notification and the actual export date. Despite improvements in communication, it was deemed reasonable that within 15 days, all concerned parties may not have been aware of the policy changes. The Tribunal found no evidence of deliberate export without a license or suppression of information by the appellants. The Customs authority had also documented their examination report in the Shipping Bill. Additionally, the appellants had acquired the goods from traders for further trade, indicating no contumacious conduct. The Tribunal concluded that the violation was technical in nature, lacking justification for the imposition of a penalty. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

The judgment delivered by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Bangalore on 30-7-2007, underlines the importance of considering the timing of policy changes concerning exports and the level of awareness among relevant parties. It highlights the need for evidence of deliberate misconduct or suppression of information to justify penalties under the Customs Act. The case serves as a reminder that technical violations may not warrant penalties, especially when there is no contumacious conduct involved.