2017 (5) TMI 739 - AT - Customs

Confiscation of goods - penalty - misdeclaration of addresses - case of appellant is that postal staff cannot ensure the correctness of address given by the consignors of any postal articles as there is no provision under any instruction issued by the Department of Posts for verification of genuineness of the addresses - Held that - The fact that these are incomplete addresses can be inferred even by a lay man and fail to understand how Md. Riyajuddin, who is a staff of the Department of Posts accepted articles for booking without an iota of doubt when the consignors of such huge volume of goods furnished these addresses. Under the circumstance, his connivance with the owners/consignors of the illegally imported foreign goods for transportation of the same through India post cannot be refuted with conviction - Md. Riyajuddin knowingly booked the animal hides as Logistic post so as to enable Md. Jaidur Rahman to transport the same illegally to Kolkata - confiscation upheld. Regarding the imposition of penalty on Shri Riyajuddin and the submissions made by the Ld. Advocate, the penalty reduced to the tune of ₹ 25,000/- on Md. Riyajuddin. In the case of Md. Abdus Sattar, no option has been given by the Adjudicating authority to redeem the confiscated goods and considering the habitual offences committed by the appellant, penalty upheld. Appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Seizure and confiscation of goods under Customs Act, 1962, Imposition of penalties under Sections 112 and 117, Verification of consignment addresses by postal staff, Appeal against penalties and confiscation.

The case involved the seizure and confiscation of goods by Customs Officers following the detection of a consignment at Imphal airport. The goods, including cigarettes, shoes, inner wear, and animal hides, were suspected to be of foreign origin. The adjudicating authority confiscated the goods under section 111(b) and 9(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. Penalties were imposed under Section 112 on the appellants, including Md. Riyajuddin and Md. Abdus Sattar. Md. Riyajuddin, In-Charge of India Post Cargo Service, was penalized for booking parcels without verifying consignee addresses, while Md. Abdus Sattar, the consignee of the animal hides, was penalized under Section 112. The appellants challenged the penalties, with Ms. Debi Parbat representing Md. Riyajuddin. The argument presented was that postal staff cannot verify consignor addresses due to the lack of provisions for address verification in postal instructions. The judgment referenced previous cases to support the defense.

The Adjudicating Authority found Md. Riyajuddin's actions questionable, noting that the consignment addresses, such as "G. Singh, Imphal-1" or "T.Singh, Imphal-1," were clearly incomplete and fictitious. The authority believed Md. Riyajuddin knowingly accepted goods with fake addresses, facilitating the transportation of illegally imported goods. The authority also highlighted the booking of animal hides for air cargo based on a permit meant for truck transportation, indicating potential connivance. Despite agreeing with the authority's findings, the appellate tribunal reduced Md. Riyajuddin's penalty to ?25,000. In Md. Abdus Sattar's case, the authority did not provide an option to redeem confiscated goods, leading to the dismissal of his appeal due to habitual offenses.

In conclusion, while the penalties imposed under Sections 112 and 117 were upheld in part, the tribunal reduced Md. Riyajuddin's penalty. The judgment emphasized the need for diligence in verifying consignment details and addressed the consequences of facilitating the transportation of illicit goods. The decision highlighted the importance of addressing operational limitations and ensuring compliance with regulations to prevent smuggling activities.