2017 (8) TMI 302 - AT - Customs

Clandestine removal - residual dust and copper scrap - penalty on appellant on the ground that he was working as an administrative manager and aided and abetted the evasion of customs duty - Held that - there is no dispute about the clearance of dust/scrap from the unit of SMC Jewels without payment of customs duty - it is clear that the appellant was actively involved in removal of goods without payment of customs duty. Therefore, he has aided and abetted the evasion of customs duty - penalty upheld - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues: Alleged evasion of customs duty, role of administrative manager in aiding and abetting, penalty imposition under Customs Act.

Analysis:
1. Evasion of Customs Duty: The case involved the removal of goods without payment of customs duty by a unit in SEEPZ-SEZ. The total duty amount ascertained was &8377; 2,64,309, which was paid by the company after the goods were seized. The appellant, an administrative manager, was accused of aiding and abetting this evasion.

2. Role of Administrative Manager: The appellant claimed innocence, stating that he was not directly involved in customs procedures and was only responsible for administrative tasks. However, the Commissioner found that the appellant actively participated in the illegal removal of goods. The appellant received monetary consideration from the scrap vendor for allowing the removal of goods without duty payment, indicating his active involvement in the evasion.

3. Penalty Imposition: The Commissioner upheld the penalty of &8377; 50,000 on the appellant under Sections 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner found the appellant's attempts to shift responsibility to the director and colleague unconvincing, considering his experience in the industry and the monetary gain he received for facilitating the evasion. The Tribunal concurred with the Commissioner's findings, upholding the penalty and dismissing the appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the penalty on the appellant for aiding and abetting the evasion of customs duty, based on his active involvement in the illegal removal of goods without payment. The appellant's role as an administrative manager did not absolve him of responsibility, as he was found to have knowingly facilitated the evasion for monetary gain. The decision highlights the importance of compliance with customs procedures and the consequences of aiding in duty evasion under the Customs Act, 1962.