9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (11) TMI 972 - AT - CustomsPenalty - smuggling - Red Sanders Wood - Held that - In the present case, the findings of the Adjudicating Authority that the appellant had not informed the police, which would not come within the purview of attempt to export goods improperly by the appellant. The word attempt would indicate an intent combined with an act to export goods improperly. So, the imposition of penalty under Section 114(i) on the appellant is not justified - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
Imposition of penalty under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 for confiscation of Red Sanders Wood. Analysis: The appeal was filed against the penalty of ?21,12,000/- imposed under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962, related to the confiscation of 5.280 MT of Red Sanders Wood. The Commissioner of Customs (Prev.) W.B., Kolkata had ordered complete confiscation of the wood under Section 113(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, with the title vested in the Central Government, and also imposed a penalty on another noticee. The case involved the recovery of Red Sanders Wood near the Indo-Bangladesh border from the land in front of the appellant's house. The Adjudicating Authority noted that the appellant denied ownership of the seized goods found on his vacant land and failed to inform the police about the goods. However, there was no evidence implicating the appellant in the smuggling of the goods. The penalty was imposed under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, which pertains to acts rendering goods liable to confiscation. The Adjudicating Authority's finding that the appellant did not inform the police did not amount to an attempt to export goods improperly, as it lacked the necessary intent combined with an act. The Tribunal found that the imposition of penalty under Section 114(i) on the appellant was unjustified based on the lack of evidence showing intent to export goods improperly. Therefore, the penalty imposed on the appellant was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. The decision was pronounced in open court on 15-3-2017.
|
