2018 (5) TMI 1068 - AT - Customs

Penalty u/s 112(a) and 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 on appellant-courier company - mis-declaration of the chattons imported for various importers and fictitious company - Held that - the role played by the appellant herein, does not indicate that they had wilfully or knowingly, made wrong declarations in the courier bills of entry, The only findings which the adjudicating authority relies for imposing penalty, is that the appellant failed to cross-check the declared value, importer s name, IEC and identity of the person who had submitted the documents for the purpose of filing of courier bill of entry - penalty u/s 112(a) of the CA 1962 not warranted. Penalty u/s 117 of CA - Held that - the said provisions are validly invoked in the said case as there is definitely a contravention of the provisions of Customs Act, 1962 on the part of the appellant herein - The contravention has to be viewed in holistic manner to hold against the appellant herein as there are violations of the Customs Act - penalty upheld, but quantum of penalty reduced. Appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues:
Imposition of penalties under Sections 112(a) and 117 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
The appeal challenged penalties imposed on the appellant for alleged violations under Sections 112(a) and 117 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant, a courier company, faced penalties due to alleged mis-declaration of goods imported for various importers. The appellant argued that penalties could not be imposed under the Customs Act, 1962. The adjudicating authority imposed penalties after due process of law.

Upon review, the Tribunal found that the appellant's failure to cross-check certain information in the courier bills of entry did not amount to willful or knowing misdeclarations. The Tribunal held that this omission might only attract provisions of the Courier Imports and Exports (Clearance) Regulations, 1998, not warranting penalties under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. Consequently, the penalty under Section 112(a) was set aside.

Regarding the penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962, the Tribunal upheld its validity due to contraventions by the appellant. The Tribunal viewed the contraventions holistically as violations of the Customs Act, justifying the penalty. However, considering the penalty amount as excessive, the Tribunal reduced it to &8377; 75,000 to ensure justice. Thus, the appeal was disposed of with the modified penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the penalty under Section 112(a) but upheld the penalty under Section 117, albeit reducing the amount to &8377; 75,000 to align with the ends of justice.