2017 (12) TMI 36 - AT - Customs

Penalty u/s 114AA of CA, 1962 - The case of the Revenue is that the goods were declared with highly inflated value in order to claim ineligible draw back and the appellant s role, attracted penal provisions - Held that - The only reason for imposing penalty under Section 114 AA of the Act as could be seen from the original order is that the appellant was in regular contact with Shri Jamuna Prasad and in fact provided him G. Card details. This by itself will not establish the role of abetting in the shipment of consignment in question. The shipping bills were not filed by the appellant and hence, there is no evidence to show that he is part of shipment, which was apparently initiated and processed by Shri Jamuna Prasad. There is no justification to impose penalty in absence of substantive evidence of abetting in shipment of improper consignment - penalty set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Imposition of penalty under Section 114 AA of the Customs Act, 1962 based on fraudulent transactions involving inflated value in shipping bills.

Analysis:
The appeal challenged an order imposing a penalty on the appellant, a G Card Holder, under Section 114 AA of the Customs Act, 1962. The case stemmed from investigations into shipping bills filed in the name of a trading company, which led to penalties for various individuals, including the appellant. The Original Authority rejected the FOB value of the goods in the shipping bill, disallowed a draw back, and imposed a penalty on the appellant for his role in the transactions. The Revenue alleged that the goods were declared with inflated value to claim ineligible draw back, implicating the appellant. The impugned order upheld the penalty, citing the appellant's association with the fraudulent transactions.

The appellant's counsel argued that the penalty was unjustified as the shipping bills were not filed by the appellant but by another individual who misused the appellant's identity. It was highlighted that the Customs House Agent (CHA) had filed an intimation regarding the misuse of the appellant's name. The respondent contended that the appellant was in regular contact with the individual who misused his identity, implying liability even if the identity was misused for fraudulent transactions.

The original order detailed the involvement of another individual, Mr. Dharampal, in the fraudulent transactions, where his identity was misused similarly to the appellant's case. The order invoked Section 114 AA of the Act, which penalizes the intentional use of false or incorrect material in business transactions. The findings indicated that the appellant's association with the individual involved in the fraudulent transactions did not establish his direct role in the improper consignment shipment. The Tribunal noted the lack of substantive evidence implicating the appellant in the fraudulent transactions and set aside the penalty, emphasizing the absence of proof of abetting in the shipment of the improper consignment.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found no justification to uphold the penalty under Section 114 AA of the Customs Act, 1962 against the appellant due to insufficient evidence linking him directly to the fraudulent transactions involving inflated values in the shipping bills.