2007 (8) TMI 226 - AT - Customs

Considering that neither the SCN nor the order of adjudication brought clearly the charge against the appellant to fulfill the condition u/s 112(b) of custom act, penalizing the appellants would be unjust.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 in penalizing appellants without clear charges.
2. Justifiability of penalty imposition when goods were not liable for confiscation.
3. Validity of the show cause notice in bringing charges against the appellant.
4. Discretion of the Tribunal in waiving penalties and disposing of the appeal without pre-deposit.

Analysis:

Issue 1: The ld. Counsel argued that penalizing both appellants without meeting the elements of Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 would be unjust. The show cause notice failed to attribute their role in making the goods liable for confiscation, thus lacking a clear charge against the appellant. The Commissioner's finding was inconclusive on the confiscability of goods, leading to a plea for fair treatment without imposing penalties.

Issue 2: The appellant's Counsel highlighted that the goods were not liable for confiscation, and the appellant had already deposited the duty amount without contesting the liability. The absence of a specific charge against the appellant under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 rendered the penalty imposition unjust and a miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the penalty levied on both appellants was waived, and the appeals were allowed.

Issue 3: The show cause notice was criticized for not clearly bringing charges against the appellant regarding the breach of law leading to confiscation. The absence of a specific charge against the appellant in the notice was deemed unjust, especially when the goods were not liable for confiscation. The Tribunal considered this lack of clarity in charges while deciding to waive the penalties and allow the appeals.

Issue 4: After hearing both sides and perusing the record, the Tribunal found that the only legal infirmity was the subject matter of the appeal. Consequently, the Tribunal exercised discretion to dispose of the appeal without pre-deposit, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. The penalty imposition was deemed unjust in light of the absence of clear charges against the appellants, leading to the waiver of penalties and disposal of the appeal.