2008 (3) TMI 160 - AT - Customs

Penalty on appellants on ground that they purchased goods imported duty free & cleared by M/s. Bhagwanji G. Trivedi against the advance licenses in respect of which the license holder had not discharged export obligation - when the transaction took place appellants were unaware of the non-fulfillment of the export obligation by licence holder - at time of investigation only they had come to know about that - Such post-facto knowledge is not sufficient for imposition of penalty u/s 112(b)

Summary

Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act on the appellants for purchasing goods imported duty-free without the export obligation being fulfilled.
2. Knowledge and involvement of the appellants in the evasion of customs duty.
3. Evidence and circumstances surrounding the transactions and penalties imposed on the appellants.
4. Application of penalty provisions under Section 112 to the appellants.

Analysis:
1. The Commissioner of Customs held that Titanium Dioxide imported by a company was liable for confiscation under Sections 111(d) and 111(o) of the Customs Act due to violation of duty-free import conditions. Penalties were imposed on the appellants for purchasing these goods without the export obligation being discharged as required by Notification No. 203/92. The penalties were based on contravention of condition (vi) of the notification, which mandates the use of exempt material for export obligations only.

2. The imposition of penalties under Section 112 of the Customs Act requires proof that the appellants had knowledge or reason to believe that the goods they dealt with were liable for confiscation. The Tribunal found that there was no conclusive evidence to establish such knowledge on the part of the appellants. Circumstantial evidence like cash transactions and high sea sale agreements were deemed insufficient to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

3. Statements from involved parties revealed the transactional details and roles played in the import and sale of Titanium Dioxide. The appellants, including license brokers and importers, were found to have engaged in transactions without full awareness of the export obligation status. Lack of concrete evidence linking them to the evasion of customs duty led to the Tribunal overturning the penalties imposed by the Commissioner.

4. The Tribunal emphasized the strict interpretation of penal provisions and the necessity for the Revenue to prove cases of duty evasion beyond reasonable doubt. The absence of pre-existing knowledge among the appellants regarding the non-fulfillment of export obligations by the license holder resulted in the penalties being set aside. The Tribunal also clarified that the nature of transactions, including cash dealings, should not be the sole basis for imposing penalties if the export obligations were met as per the notification requirements.

In conclusion, the Tribunal overturned the penalties imposed on the appellants under Section 112 of the Customs Act, citing insufficient evidence to prove their involvement in the evasion of customs duty. The judgment highlighted the importance of establishing knowledge and intent in cases of duty evasion before penalizing individuals or entities involved in such transactions.