2018 (3) TMI 1726 - CGOVT - Customs

Imposition of penalty - active involvement in the case of smuggling - case of Revenue is that in spite of respondent s active involvement in the case the Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly exonerated him and as per Section 128A(3) of the Customs Act, 1962 the Commissioner (Appeals) does not have power to remand back the case to original authority - Jurisdiction - power of Commissioner (Appeals) to remand the case back - Held that - Applicant played an important role as a loader in connection with the wrong activities of Mr. Nagia and is liable for penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act - Apparently all the facts have not been considered objectively by the Commissioner (Appeals). Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) is empowered to remand the case back to original authority? - Held that - The Government agrees with the applicant that Commissioner (Appeals) does not have power to remand the case under sub-section (3) of Section 128A of the Customs Act. Hence the Government set aside the order-in-appeal. Considering the fact that the respondent is a loader only and his role was limited to shifting the baggages within the Airport only by taking a paltry amount of just ₹ 200/-, the Government reduces the penalty from ₹ 50,000/- to ₹ 10,000/- on the respondent - Revision application allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Commissioner (Appeals) remanding the case back to original authority.
2. Role of the respondent in abetting smuggling activities.
3. Commissioner (Appeals) power to remand the case under Section 128A(3) of the Customs Act.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a Revision Application filed against the Order-in-Appeal where the penalty imposed on the respondent was set aside. The Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the case back to the original authority, which was challenged on the grounds that the Commissioner did not have the power to remand the case under Section 128A(3) of the Customs Act. The Government found that the Commissioner's observations did not specify the reasons for remanding the case, leading to confusion. Despite this, the penalty on the respondent was reduced from &8377; 50,000 to &8377; 10,000 considering his limited role as a loader within the airport.

2. The respondent, a loader at the airport, was found to have actively participated in smuggling activities by shifting baggages containing foreign goods within the airport. The Government noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) had failed to objectively consider the evidence against the respondent, which clearly showed his involvement in abetting the smuggling of goods. The respondent was aware of the evasion activities of the passenger and had previously assisted in diverting imported goods. As a loader, he had a crucial role in the wrongful activities and was held liable for penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act.

3. The Government agreed with the applicant that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not have the power to remand the case back to the original authority under Section 128A(3) of the Customs Act. Despite setting aside the Order-in-Appeal, the Government reduced the penalty on the respondent due to his limited role and the amount he received for his involvement in the smuggling activities. The Revision Application filed by the Revenue was allowed, and the penalty on the respondent was decreased from &8377; 50,000 to &8377; 10,000.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues surrounding the remand of the case, the role of the respondent in smuggling activities, and the Commissioner's power to remand cases under the Customs Act.