2018 (3) TMI 1721 - CGOVT - Customs

Penalty u/s 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 - smuggling or not? - Illegal import - gold, two cameras, electric bedsheets, mobile phone and LED T.V. - contravention of provision of the Customs Act - Held that - Except the fact that the applicant had requested Mr. Rajesh Kumar to bring some goods for him from abroad, there is no evidence to show that he had asked Mr. Rajesh Kumar to bring the foreign goods by smuggling thereof. The applicant had not even paid any advance money also to Mr. Rajesh Kumar from which it is implied that he had intended to make payment only after goods were handed over to him. Hence, on the basis of the applicant s mere request to Mr. Rajesh Kumar to bring imported goods, it cannot be held that the applicant had violated any provision of Customs Act or abetted any such contravention. Government finds that applicant s case is not covered under Section 117 of the Customs Act - the penalty is not warranted on Mr. Sandeep Kumar. Since Mr. Sanjeev Kumar had also requested Mr. Rajesh Kumar to bring imported goods like Mr. Sandeep Kumar had requested, the Government is convinced that no penalty can be imposed on Mr. Sanjeev Kumar also. Revision application allowed.

Summary

Issues:
- Reduction of penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 for illegal importation of goods
- Alleged involvement of the applicant in the illegal importation of goods
- Discrepancy in penalties imposed on different individuals involved in the case
- Justification for setting aside the penalty on the applicant

Analysis:
1. Reduction of Penalty under Section 117: The judgment revolves around a Revision Application filed against an Order-in-Appeal reducing the penalty from ?1.00 lakh to ?50,000 under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962. The case involved illegal importation of goods worth ?15,45,000 recovered from a passenger, leading to penalties imposed on multiple individuals.

2. Applicant's Alleged Involvement: The applicant was implicated as he requested the passenger to bring goods from abroad. However, the Government found no evidence indicating that the applicant was involved in smuggling or contravening Customs Act provisions. Notably, the applicant had not paid any advance money to the passenger, suggesting no intent to violate the law. The Government concluded that the applicant did not abet any contravention, leading to the setting aside of the penalty.

3. Discrepancy in Penalties: The judgment highlighted a discrepancy in penalties imposed on different individuals involved in the case. While the penalty on another individual, Mr. Sandeep Kumar, was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) due to unclear evidence, the penalty on the applicant was only reduced. This raised concerns of discrimination and inconsistency in penalty imposition, prompting the Government to examine the matter thoroughly.

4. Justification for Setting Aside Penalty: The Government's examination revealed that the applicant's case was not covered under Section 117 of the Customs Act. Drawing parallels with Mr. Sandeep Kumar's case, where penalty setting aside was not challenged, the Government concluded that no penalty could be imposed on the applicant. The judgment emphasized the lack of clear evidence to prove the applicant's contravention, aligning with the decision to set aside the penalty and allow the revision application.

In conclusion, the judgment focused on the applicant's alleged involvement in illegal importation of goods, the discrepancy in penalties imposed on different individuals, and the justification for setting aside the penalty based on insufficient evidence and lack of abetment in contravention. The decision to allow the revision application was grounded in the Government's assessment of the applicant's actions and the parallel case of Mr. Sandeep Kumar, ensuring fairness and consistency in penalty imposition.