2017 (8) TMI 54 - AT - Customs

Penalty - smuggling - poultry vaccines - Held that - I do not find any material regarding the involvement in the alleged offence. It is well settled that the imposition of penalty would be warranted on the materials available on record against the accused. Regarding the appeal filed by Dr Amrit Jyoti Mudoi, I find from the impugned order that the DRI Officers recovered two exercise books used by Dr. Amrit Jyoti Mudoi in which all the transactions related to receipt of smuggled vaccines from Shri Sudhir Kumar Mahajan and the payment made to him were recorded - I am unable to accept the submission of the Ld. Counsel of Dr. Amrit Jyoti Mudoi for the reason that they are not claiming the Indian Currency. In any event, the evidence on record would show the involvement of Dr. Amrit Jyoti Mudoi in the alleged offence. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty on various persons related to smuggling of poultry vaccines and Indian Currency.
2. Appeal against the imposition of penalty of ?200,000 by Dr. Amrit Jyoti Mudoi.
3. Revenue's appeal against the dropping of penalties for other employees of M/s Suguna Poultry Farm Ltd.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the interception of smuggled poultry vaccines and Indian Currency, leading to penalties imposed on individuals connected to the smuggling operation. The Adjudicating Authority confiscated the goods and currency, with penalties ranging from ?200,000 on Dr. Amrit Jyoti Mudoi to refraining from imposing penalties on other employees of M/s Suguna Poultry Farm Ltd.

2. The appeal filed by Dr. Amrit Jyoti Mudoi contested the penalty of ?200,000 imposed on him. The argument presented was that his actions were in the interest of the company during the Bird Flu epidemic, and there was no evidence linking the Indian Currency to the sale proceeds of smuggled vaccines. However, the recovery of incriminating evidence, including transaction records and statements from other individuals, indicated his involvement in the offense. The Tribunal upheld the Adjudicating Authority's decision based on the evidence presented.

3. The Revenue's appeal focused on challenging the dropping of penalties for other employees of M/s Suguna Poultry Farm Ltd. The Adjudicating Authority's findings highlighted the lack of substantial evidence linking these individuals to the smuggling operation. The Tribunal agreed that without concrete evidence of their involvement, penalties could not be imposed solely based on suspicion or assumptions. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, affirming the Adjudicating Authority's decision in the case.

In conclusion, the judgment upheld the penalties imposed on individuals directly involved in the smuggling operation based on substantial evidence while dismissing appeals where insufficient proof of involvement was presented. The decision underscored the importance of concrete evidence in determining liability and imposing penalties in customs-related offenses.