9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (12) TMI 893 - AT - CustomsImposition of penalty u/s Sec 114 (i) of the Customs Act 1962 - violation of provisions of Sec 113 - It is the case of the appellant that his client has not done any of the irregularities mentioned in Sec 113 of the Customs Act 1962 to invite confiscation & penalty. That his client is also not the abettor for imposing penalty under Sec 114 (i) of the Customs Act 1962 and also that appellant has been charged as on exporter. Held that - Relied upon case law of Apex Court CC Lucknow Vs G.P. Jaiswal 2015 (4) TMI 279 - SUPREME COURT was decided by the Apex Court where issue was overinvoicing of goods. In this context Apex Court observed that a person supervising stuffing of goods may not be aware of over invoicing of goods. Observations of Apex Court also clearly convey that knowledge of the wrong deeds should exist before a person can be visited with penalty - In the present case, appellant had clear knowledge of prohibited nature of Red Sanders Wood for export but continued to assist the unknown exporters till the dispatch of containers out of India. Penalty is imposable upon the appellant u/s 114(i) of the Customs Act 1962. However in the interest of justice penalty of ₹ 10 lakh imposed upon the appellant is reduced to ₹ 5 lakh as the value of contraband Red Sanders Wood has been assessed at ₹ 27.12 lakh. Appeal disposed off - decided partly in favor of appellant.
Issues Involved:
1. Imposition of penalty under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act 1962. 2. Appellant's role as an abettor. 3. Investigation and natural justice. 4. Equity in penalty imposition. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Imposition of Penalty under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act 1962: The appeal challenges the imposition of a ?10 lakh penalty on the appellant under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act 1962 by the adjudicating authority. The appellant argued that he was merely a broker and did not violate Section 113 provisions, thus no penalty should be imposed. The adjudicating authority's order was deemed "very sketchy" and the appellant was wrongly considered as an exporter. 2. Appellant's Role as an Abettor: The appellant's role was scrutinized through his statements dated 4/3/08, 5/3/08, and 17/3/08. These statements revealed that the appellant supervised all operations regarding the clearance of containers, including payments, and was aware of the exact quantity of goods being exported. Despite knowing that Red Sanders Wood, a prohibited item, was being loaded, the appellant continued to assist in the export process. The appellant's claim of being threatened was found unconvincing. The adjudicating authority concluded that the appellant's actions constituted abetment, thereby justifying the penalty under Section 114(i). 3. Investigation and Natural Justice: The appellant argued that the investigation was faulty and the principles of natural justice were violated as his oral arguments were not discussed by the adjudicating authority. The appellant's consultant contended that since the CHA was let off, the appellant should also be exempted on equity principles. However, the records indicated that the CHA was not aware of the Red Sanders Wood stuffing, whereas the appellant had clear knowledge and continued to assist in the export. 4. Equity in Penalty Imposition: The appellant argued that the penalty was excessive and disproportionate given his low income. The tribunal acknowledged the excessive nature of the penalty and reduced it from ?10 lakh to ?5 lakh, considering the value of the contraband Red Sanders Wood assessed at ?27.12 lakh. Despite the reduction, the tribunal upheld the imposition of the penalty on the grounds of the appellant's abetment in the offense. Conclusion: The tribunal analyzed the appellant's involvement and the evidence presented, concluding that the appellant abetted the export of prohibited Red Sanders Wood. The penalty was deemed justified under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act 1962, but was reduced to ?5 lakh in the interest of justice. The appeal was rejected with the modification in the penalty amount.
|
