2017 (11) TMI 252 - AT - Customs

Smuggling - red sanders - penalty - Held that - the department has not been able to adduce any evidence with regard to the direct or indirect involvement of the appellant - The goods exported by appellant, viz. Activated Carbon was loaded in the presence of officers and sealed and the seals were intact on the container as per report of authorities dt.31.7.2013. These being the facts, there is no evidence to establish,the involvement of the appellant in the attempt to smuggle Red Sanders. Penalty unjustified - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Seizure and substitution of goods during export.
2. Confiscation and penalty under Customs Act, 1962.
3. Role and liability of the exporter in smuggling attempt.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the seizure of 420 wooden logs of Red Sanders, substituted for Activated Carbon during export, leading to confiscation and penalty under the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant exported activated carbon, but the container was found to contain prohibited Red Sanders instead. The authorities detected the substitution en route, leading to confiscation and penalties.

2. The original authority ordered the confiscation of the Red Sanders logs and imposed a penalty of ?5 lakhs on the appellant under section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision. However, the appellant argued that they were unaware of the smuggling attempt and were misled by individuals who orchestrated the scheme.

3. The appellant claimed innocence, stating they were deceived by a mastermind who arranged the export and substituted the goods without their knowledge. The appellant highlighted that the seals on the container were intact when checked, indicating no collusion on their part. The appellant emphasized the lack of evidence linking them directly to the smuggling attempt.

4. The Tribunal reviewed the facts and found no direct or indirect involvement of the appellant in the smuggling attempt. The Tribunal noted that the mastermind behind the scheme was untraceable, and the appellant had cooperated with authorities. Consequently, the penalty imposed on the appellant was deemed unjustified and set aside.

5. The Tribunal modified the impugned order, setting aside the penalty imposed on the appellant and allowing the appeal with consequential reliefs. The judgment emphasized the lack of evidence implicating the appellant in the smuggling attempt, leading to the decision to overturn the penalty.

In conclusion, the judgment focused on the lack of evidence linking the appellant to the smuggling attempt, highlighting their innocence in the scheme orchestrated by unidentified individuals. The decision to set aside the penalty was based on the findings that the appellant had been misled and was not directly involved in the substitution of goods during export.