2017 (10) TMI 1266 - AT - Customs

Penalty u/s 112 and 114AA of the CA, 1962 - the only allegation against the appellant is that he gave authorization for Pass to Shri Biplav Kumar who is their employee and H Card holder - Held that - The Bill of entry for the present consignment was falsely filed in the name of the appellant, by others on 16.11.2010. Even if, it is held that the act of the appellant in issuing a letter dated 20.10.2010 is an infringement, it is not tenable to hold that such act made the goods imported on 16.11.2010 liable for confiscation. There is no link between these two acts. Further, the appellant is not liable for penalty under Section 114 AA as the said penalty relates to act of a person knowingly signing any declaration or documents, which he knows, as false or incorrect in the transaction of any business under the Customs Act. There was apparently linkage between the attempted smuggling of the particular consignment with the CHA and employee. In the present case, the impugned consignment cannot be linked to the appellant - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Issues:
1. Confiscation of seized goods and imposition of penalties under Sections 112 and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Allegation against the appellant for unauthorized actions leading to penalties.
3. Dispute over the penal liability of the appellant for issuing a letter for a Pass to an employee.
4. Interpretation of penal provisions under Sections 112 and 114AA in relation to the appellant's actions.
5. Comparison of the present case with the precedent cited by the Revenue.
6. Final decision on the sustainability of penalties imposed on the appellant.

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged the order of the Commissioner of Customs for confiscation of seized goods and imposition of penalties under Sections 112 and 114AA. The appellant, a licensed Customs House Agent, was involved in a case where an import consignment was found to contain different items than declared. The Commissioner's order allowed redemption of goods on payment of a fine. Various penalties, including on the appellant, were imposed. The appellant contested these penalties in the appeal.

2. The appellant's counsel argued that the appellant's name was misused, and they did not file the Bill of Entry in question. The appellant's role was limited to authorizing an employee for a Pass, which was the basis for the penalties imposed. The appellant's failure to renew the employee's 'H' Card in time was cited as a reason for the penalties.

3. The original authority found the appellant liable for penalties under Sections 112 and 114AA due to the issuance of a letter for a Pass to an employee whose 'H' Card had expired. The appellant's counsel contended that the requirements for penal action were not met in this case.

4. The argument against the appellant was that issuing the Pass letter without the employee's renewed 'H' Card attracted penal provisions under Sections 112 and 114AA. However, the Tribunal noted that the penalties should be for acts or omissions rendering goods liable for confiscation or knowingly making false declarations, which were not clearly established in this case.

5. The Tribunal distinguished the present case from a precedent cited by the Revenue, stating that the facts and circumstances were not similar. Unlike the precedent, the impugned consignment could not be linked to the appellant, as per the findings of the original authority.

6. After thorough analysis, the Tribunal found that the penalties imposed on the appellant were not sustainable. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed based on the lack of established penal liability on the appellant's part.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive overview of the issues involved and the Tribunal's reasoning leading to the decision to set aside the penalties imposed on the appellant.

← Previous Next →