2017 (10) TMI 1325 - AT - Customs

Penalty u/s 114 AA of the Customs Act, 1962 - The only ground taken by the appellant before the first appellate authority is that since on an identical issue in penalty against on him is contested and is in appeal before the first appellate authority - Held that - The first appellate authority in the impugned order has come to a conclusion as to how he has appreciated the evidences, which are on records and also the grounds of appeal of the appellant before him. It can be seen from the said findings which are in Paragraph number 6 and 7, reasoning indicate matter was gone into the details to the evidence on record and the role attributable to appellant herein - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues: Penalty under Section 114 AA of the Customs Act, 1962

Analysis:
The appellant contested the penalty imposed under Section 114 AA of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant did not dispute the illegal import of poppy seeds from Pakistan but challenged the reasoning behind the penalty imposition. The appellant argued that there was no evidence to prove the consignment was imported by him. The first appellate authority considered the appellant's grounds of appeal and examined the evidence on record. The authority noted the appellant's admission of knowing a postman who delivered posts to him. The call detail record of the appellant's mobile number showed frequent contact with the postman. The appellant was found to be in regular contact with individuals involved in the illegal import scheme. The postmaster confirmed the receipt of Speed Post by the appellant from the post office. Despite confrontation with evidence, the appellant denied involvement. The appellant's behavior indicated his participation in the fraudulent import scheme, leading to the imposition of the penalty under Section 114AA. The appellant's reliance on case laws was deemed irrelevant to the present case.

The appellant argued that the adjudicating authority should act independently without influence from higher authorities. The adjudicating authority thoroughly discussed the issue before imposing the penalty, rejecting the appellant's plea. The appellate tribunal upheld the impugned order, stating no reason to interfere with the penalty imposition. The appeal was consequently rejected.