2008 (5) TMI 135 - AT - Customs

Penalty has been imposed on the appellant for abetting an act which rendered the goods liable for confiscation on the ground that he was present during loading and-subsequent offloading of the crates from the trucks allegation is that he arranged truck, labour, forklift - no allegation/evidence/finding that the appellant was in any manner directly or indirectly involved in the import - appellant did not commit any act, which rendered them liable to confiscation penalty set aside

Summary

Issues: Penalty imposed under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 for alleged involvement in arranging trucks and handling goods during import.

The judgment pertains to the penalty of Rs. 25,000/- imposed on the appellant under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner found the appellant liable for penalty based on his alleged involvement in arranging trucks and handling goods during import. The appellant was accused of arranging trucks on a specific date, being present during loading and offloading of crates, and having an association in the removal of goods, as noted by the driver of the truck. The Commissioner held the appellant accountable under Section 112(a) for abetting an act that rendered the goods liable for confiscation.

Upon hearing both sides and examining the records, it was noted that the allegations against the appellant were primarily based on contradictory statements. The appellant, Shri Nitin Narsale, denied all accusations, and his statement was deemed exculpatory. The Commissioner's findings were challenged as they relied on conflicting statements from a clerk of CHA Jepsons, where the appellant was not initially named. Additionally, crucial witnesses like the forklift operator did not implicate the appellant in any wrongdoing.

The judgment highlighted that introducing a passenger to a Customs House Agent (CHA) and arranging transport or labor at someone's request did not constitute an offense. It was emphasized that no evidence suggested the appellant issued instructions for loading/unloading the crates in question. Being present during such operations as a CHA employee did not automatically imply involvement in any illicit activities related to the import process.

Furthermore, the judgment emphasized that the penalty was imposed without specifying the particular act or person abetted by the appellant. It was clarified that there was no evidence linking the appellant directly or indirectly to the import process that rendered the goods liable for confiscation. Citing relevant case laws, the judgment concluded that the appellant's actions did not contribute to the goods becoming liable for confiscation, and the penalty imposition was deemed unjustified.

In conclusion, the penalty imposed on the appellant was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. The judgment, delivered on 30-5-2008, underscored that the appellant's alleged involvement did not warrant the penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, as there was insufficient evidence to establish his culpability in the import-related activities leading to confiscation.