2018 (4) TMI 1542 - HC - Customs

Penalty u/s 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 - smuggling of betel nuts - Held that - The Tribunal specifically did not address culpability of the respondent No. 1 as opinion of the Tribunal was that the entire consignment was not proved to have been smuggled - The allegations against the respondent No. 1 do not attract the mischief contemplated in the aforesaid provision - penalty set aside - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues: Delay in filing appeal, Condonation of delay, Exoneration of respondent from penalty, Allegations under Section 112 of Customs Act, Dismissal of appeal.

In this judgment by the Calcutta High Court, the primary issue addressed is the delay of 112 days in filing the appeal. The Court, after examining the petition seeking condonation of delay, concluded that there was a sufficient cause for the delay and proceeded to condone the delay of 112 days. This decision led to the disposal of GA No. 2733 of 2016. The Court then proceeded to hear both the appeal and the stay petition together, with the consent of the parties' advocates, waiving the service of notice of appeal and dispensing with all other formalities.

Moving on to the substantive issue of the case, the appellant, the Commissioner of Customs, challenged an order by the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal concerning the imposition of penalties on individuals for smuggling betel nuts. The Tribunal's decision set aside the penalty imposed, specifically exonerating respondent No. 1 from the charge and penalty for improper importation of goods. The Court examined the allegations against respondent No. 1, detailed in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the order, which accused him of abetting smuggling. However, the Tribunal did not address the culpability of respondent No. 1, as it was not proven that the entire consignment was smuggled.

The Court then delved into the legal aspects, particularly focusing on Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant's counsel argued that respondent No. 1 was liable under Section 112(b) for abetting smuggling. However, the Court found that the allegations against respondent No. 1 did not align with the provisions of Section 112(b) and did not present any additional inculpatory evidence beyond what was specified in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the order. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal and the stay petition, ruling in favor of the respondent.

Ultimately, the Court concluded that there were no compelling circumstances implicating respondent No. 1 beyond the specific allegations outlined in the order. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.