2018 (3) TMI 1856 - AT - Customs

Smuggling - Seizure of vehicle alongwith the goods - extension of period for issuance of SCN - Penalty - HELD THAT - By Order dated 07.05.2013, the Commissioner extended the period of issue of Show Cause Notice upto 16.11.2013. It is seen from the record that the Show Cause Notice was issued on 12.11.2013. Hence, there is no need to go into this matter as the Show Cause Notice had already been issued. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed as infractuous. Penalty - HELD THAT - It is found from the record that the allegation is that the seized goods namely Cough Syrup and Cough Linctus of huge quantity were admittedly smuggled to Bangladesh. The appellant is the Manager of the Transport Company and responsible for loading of the goods. He has not come up with reasonable explanation against the charges labeled against him. Therefore, the imposition of penalty is justified, but the quantum of penalty is reduced. Appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues:
1. Extension of the period for issuance of Show Cause Notice under Customs Act, 1962.
2. Confiscation of seized goods, vehicles, and imposition of penalties.

Extension of Show Cause Notice Period:
In the case, the Commissioner extended the period for issuing a Show Cause Notice under Section 124(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Show Cause Notice was issued on 12.11.2013, after the extension order dated 07.05.2013. The appellant argued that proper opportunity of hearing was not provided and that they did not receive the Show Cause Notice. However, since the Notice had already been issued, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as infructuous.

Confiscation and Penalties:
The Adjudicating authority proposed confiscation of seized goods and vehicles, along with penalties on various individuals. The goods, namely Recodex Cough Syrup and Phensedyl Cough Linctus, were seized for smuggling to Bangladesh. In Appeal No. C/75930/15, the appellant, an employee of a transport company, contested the penalty imposed on him, claiming lack of knowledge about the smuggling. The Commissioner found the appellant responsible for loading the goods and not verifying their genuineness, leading to their illegal export. The Tribunal upheld the penalty but reduced the amount from ?50,000 to ?10,000, considering the appellant's role as an employee and lack of substantial evidence against him.

This judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT KOLKATA addressed issues related to the extension of the Show Cause Notice period and the confiscation of seized goods with penalties imposed on individuals involved in smuggling activities. The Tribunal dismissed an appeal as infructuous due to the issuance of the Show Cause Notice before the appeal hearing. In another appeal, the Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed on an employee of a transport company for his involvement in loading smuggled goods, but reduced the penalty amount considering his role and the lack of concrete evidence against him.