9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (12) TMI 459 - AT - CustomsPenalty u/s 114AA of the CA, 1962 - imposition of penalty on the ground that the premises of the appellant showed that the goods were clandestinely diverted by him to M/s. ESS ESS Traders, which were imported under the cover of Bill of Entry dated 29.11.2012 - Held that - it cannot be said that the appellant had provided certain false or incorrect material in relation to such import. Further, the Department was also in doubt as to the persons, who were actually filed the Bill of Entry for assessment purpose - Since contradictory stand has been taken by the Department at page 13 and at page 16 in the adjudication order, it cannot be said that the appellant is the importer of the goods and has made false declaration in context with the subject import - penalty set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues: Imposition of penalty under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962
The judgment pertains to an appeal against an order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi, regarding the imposition of a penalty under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. The case involved the confiscation of petroleum products deemed hazardous waste under the Hazardous Waste (Management Handling and Trans-boundary Movement) Rules, 2008. The appellant, a party involved in the import and sale of these goods, was penalized by the adjudicating authority. The Department alleged that the goods were diverted clandestinely, leading to the imposition of a penalty of ?2,00,000. However, upon review, the Tribunal found that the appellant had not provided false or incorrect information related to the import, as the Bill of Entry was filed by another entity, and there were inconsistencies in the Department's stance regarding the importers. The Tribunal referenced a previous order involving the same appellant, where it was held that the appellant could not be held liable for the penalty under Section 114AA. The Tribunal noted the failure of the Revenue to prove illegal import against the appellant and concluded that the penalty imposed was unjustified. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. In analyzing the issues involved, the Tribunal considered the circumstances surrounding the import and sale of petroleum products, the alleged diversion of goods, and the imposition of a penalty under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal highlighted that the appellant had not provided false information related to the import, as the Bill of Entry was filed by a different entity, and there were doubts regarding the actual importers. The Tribunal also noted inconsistencies in the Department's position, indicating that the appellant could not be conclusively deemed the importer responsible for any false declarations. Additionally, the Tribunal referenced a prior order involving the same appellant, where it was established that the appellant could not be held liable for the penalty under Section 114AA. The Tribunal emphasized the Revenue's failure to substantiate the charge of illegal import against the appellant, leading to the conclusion that the penalty imposed lacked merit. As a result, the Tribunal set aside the penalty and allowed the appeal filed by the appellant. In conclusion, the judgment addressed the imposition of a penalty under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962, in a case involving the import and sale of petroleum products deemed hazardous waste. The Tribunal scrutinized the circumstances, highlighting that the appellant had not provided false information regarding the import and that doubts existed regarding the actual importers. Citing inconsistencies in the Department's position and referencing a previous order involving the same appellant, the Tribunal concluded that the penalty imposed was unwarranted due to the Revenue's failure to prove illegal import. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the penalty and allowed the appellant's appeal.
|
