2016 (12) TMI 1434 - AT - Customs

Confiscation - penalty - goods cleared from SEEPZ area - Appellants removed garbage and sweeps from SEEPZ area and subsequently recovered precious metals from such garbage - Held that - the appellant was not an authorised agent for removing of garbage and sweeps from SEEPZ area. The said contract was awarded to some other person and that person had outsourced the removal of garbage and sweeps from SEEPZ without any authorisation from authorities. This would indicate the appellants were undertaking the activity of removal of garbage and sweeps in unauthorised manner which itself calls for imposition of penalty on the appellant - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues: Confiscation of goods under Section 111(m) and (o) in respect of goods cleared from SEEPZ area, imposition of penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.

In the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI, the appeal was directed against Order-in-Original No. CCP/KPM/ADJN/ M&P/12/05 dated 30.11.2005, contested by the appellants. The issue under consideration was the confiscation of goods under Section 111(m) and (o) in relation to goods cleared from the SEEPZ area. The appellants removed garbage and sweeps from SEEPZ area and recovered precious metals from it. The department contended that the appellants were not authorized to remove such garbage, possessing precious metals subject to confiscation and penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Upon reviewing the records, it was established that the appellants were not authorized to remove garbage and sweeps from the SEEPZ area. The argument that the main appellant and others being importers could not be held liable was deemed incorrect. It was evident from the records that the appellant was not an authorized agent for garbage removal, as the contract was awarded to another person who outsourced the removal without proper authorization. This unauthorized activity of garbage removal by the appellants warranted the imposition of penalties.

The Tribunal found no merit in the appeals based on the unauthorized removal of garbage and sweeps from the SEEPZ area. Consequently, the appeals were rejected. The decision highlighted the importance of adherence to authorized procedures and the consequences of engaging in unauthorized activities, leading to the imposition of penalties under relevant customs regulations.