2017 (12) TMI 904 - AT - Customs

Importer of goods - unclaimed consignment - SCN s issued in this regard, were adjudicated vide order dated 27.02.2014, holding that Sh. Loveleen Sawhney is the importer of impugned goods and by his acts of omission and commission, has rendered such goods liable to confiscation under Section 111(f), (l) and (m) of the CA, 1962 - penalty - Held that - Since Sh. Loveleen Sawhney has not filed any documents in respect of clearance of the imported consignments. Thus, he cannot be termed as importer under Section 2(26) of the Customs Act, 1962 - Department has not adduced any concrete evidence that the appellants have active participation or role in illegal importation of the subject goods in question. Penalty set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Imposition of penalties under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the appellants.

Analysis:
1. Facts of the Case: The case involved the imposition of penalties under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the appellants based on a specific intelligence report regarding missing memory cards from an unclaimed consignment. The Department proceeded for confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalties after issuing show cause notices (SCNs) to various persons, including the appellants.

2. Appellant's Submission: The advocate for the appellant argued that the Department failed to produce documentary evidence proving the consignment belonged to M/s. ABB Ltd. or that the appellants had given any delivery order to an importer. The advocate contended that the case was based on assumption and presumption, and penalties could not be justified. Reference was made to previous tribunal decisions to support this argument.

3. Revenue's Argument: The Department, represented by the DR, maintained that the penalties were justified as the real importer was identified as Sh. Loveleen Sawhney, and the consignment was unclaimed with no one coming forward to clear it. It was argued that the appellants were involved in the illegal importation of the goods.

4. Judgment: The Tribunal examined the evidence and found that since the consignment remained unclaimed and Sh. Loveleen Sawhney did not provide any clearance documents, he could not be considered the importer under the Customs Act. Moreover, there was a lack of concrete evidence implicating the appellants in the illegal importation. Relying on the cited tribunal decisions, the Tribunal concluded that the penalties under Section 112(a) could not be imposed on the appellants. Consequently, the impugned orders imposing penalties were set aside, and the appeals were allowed in favor of the appellants.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive understanding of the issues involved, the arguments presented by both sides, and the Tribunal's reasoning leading to the final decision to set aside the penalties imposed on the appellants.