9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (5) TMI 66 - AT - CustomsAppellant, Assistant Shed Superintendent (supervisory officer) penalty imposed on him ground that he received unmarked wooden crates in the shed and did not forward the same for Customs examination but removing the goods clandestinely - since no evidence has been produced by the department. to show that he is part of any group of smugglers etc. or that he was aware about the excess goods lying in his shed, penalty cannot be imposed on him
Issues: Allegations of clandestine removal of excess cargo, Penalty under Section 112(a) and (b) of the Customs Act, 1962, Supervisory role of the appellant, Lack of concrete evidence, Inquiry report by Mumbai Port Trust, Mens rea or knowledge of smuggling activity, Case laws relied upon.
In this case, the appellant, an Assistant Shed Superintendent at Mumbai Port Trust, was accused of receiving unmarked wooden crates in the shed and not forwarding them for Customs examination, leading to allegations of clandestine removal of excess cargo. The Commissioner imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000 under Section 112(a) and (b) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, upon review, the Tribunal found that the appellant was a supervisory officer overseeing various personnel and activities in the shed, including de-stuffing containers and warehousing goods. The appellant's role was limited to supervisory functions, and it was not his responsibility to personally check each package. The Tribunal noted the lack of evidence linking the appellant to any smuggling activities or receiving any consideration for alleged wrongdoings. The Tribunal also highlighted that the inquiry conducted by Mumbai Port Trust had found no charges proved against the appellant. Additionally, the Tribunal emphasized the absence of mens rea or knowledge of smuggling activity on the part of the appellant, citing relevant case laws to support its decision. Therefore, based on the discussions and considerations outlined, the Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant and allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the appellant on 30-5-2008.
|
