2016 (11) TMI 35 - AT - Customs

Absolute confiscation of consignment - imposition of penalties - prohibited goods - unclaimed container - Held that - there is no dispute about the fact that the respondent had not filed the Bill of Entry and as such, cannot be considered to be an importer. Based upon the information passed by Container Corporation that the container in question was ordered by the respondent. When their being no evidence to that effect, penalty cannot be imposed upon the respondent - appeal rejected - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation and penalty imposed based on unclaimed container with restricted goods.
2. Appeal against penalty set aside by Commissioner (Appeals) due to lack of evidence.
3. Lack of evidence linking the respondent to the ownership of the goods in question.
4. Dispute regarding the respondent's status as an importer due to non-filing of Bill of Entry.

Analysis:
The case involves the confiscation of a container stuffed with restricted goods and the imposition of a penalty on the respondent for not claiming the goods. The proceedings were initiated based on information from the Container Corporation of India regarding the unclaimed container. The adjudicating proceedings led to the absolute confiscation of the container and the imposition of a penalty amounting to ?14 lakh on the respondent.

Upon appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the penalty citing the lack of evidence linking the respondent to the ownership of the goods. The Commissioner emphasized that the respondent cannot be considered the importer of the goods solely based on an order allegedly placed back in 2011, especially since no Bill of Entry was filed. The judgment highlighted the legal principle that without a filed Bill of Entry, the issue of penalty under the Customs Act does not arise, thereby supporting the appeal and setting aside the penalty while upholding the confiscation.

The Revenue, in their appeal, failed to provide additional evidence establishing the respondent's ownership of the goods. The absence of concrete evidence linking the respondent to the container in question further supported the decision to set aside the penalty. The judgment reiterated that without proof of the respondent filing a Bill of Entry, they cannot be deemed an importer, and hence, the penalty imposition was deemed unjustified.

In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, affirming the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) to set aside the penalty imposed on the respondent. The lack of evidence linking the respondent to the goods and the failure to file a Bill of Entry were crucial factors in determining the respondent's status as an importer and the subsequent penalty imposition.