2009 (1) TMI 111 - HC - Customs

Penalty has been imposed on the person just for directing the transporter to load the vehicle from the factory premises neither the role of the respondent is specified nor the nexus with the manufacturing unit is established - nothing contrary is available on record to show that the respondent had either knowledge or had reason to believe that the goods in question were liable for confiscation tribunal rightly deleted the penalty imposed on respondent u/s 112 b of the Customs Act, 1962

Summary

Issues:
- Challenge to order of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding penalty under Section 112[b] of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged an order made by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the imposition of a penalty under Section 112[b] of the Customs Act, 1962. The main question raised was whether the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the penalty imposed on the respondent.

2. The Tribunal had heard a group of appeals and disposed of them by a common order. However, the present appeal specifically arose from the Tribunal's order in Custom Appeal No.C/1547/05. The appellant sought permission to amend the proposed question by correctly mentioning the section in question, which was granted.

3. The appellant contended that the penalty was imposed on the respondent due to allegations of clandestine removal of goods based on statements made by the driver and owner of the tempo. The Tribunal was accused of error in deleting the penalty, as it was believed that the respondent had directed the loading of goods in the tempo.

4. The impugned order of the Tribunal regarding the respondent stated that the penalty was imposed merely for directing the transporter to load the vehicle from the factory premises. It was noted that the appellants had no knowledge that the goods were liable for confiscation, and in such circumstances, the penalty was deemed impermissible.

5. Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 allows for the levy of penalties on individuals who are involved in carrying goods they know or have reason to believe are liable for confiscation. In this case, the Tribunal found that the respondent's role and connection to the manufacturing unit were not established, and there was no evidence to suggest that the respondent had knowledge or reason to believe the goods were liable for confiscation.

6. The Tribunal's order was upheld, stating that there was no legal infirmity in the decision, and no substantial question of law arose from the case. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the Tribunal's decision to set aside the penalty imposed on the respondent.