2018 (8) TMI 1471 - AT - Customs

Penalty u/s 112 (a) of Customs Act, 1962 - Smuggling - automobile tyres were sought to be imported under the guise of chappals - Held that - Though the shipping line Manager has stated that he was contacting the appellant on his mobile number, it is not indicated in the said statement that it was in respect of the declarations to be made on IGM or in respect of the disputed consignment - It is also to be noted that no role is attributed to the appellant herein and no bill of entry is filed by appellant so as to allege any mis-declaration. In the absence of anything to indicate that appellant played any role in importing tyres in the guise of chappals, the provisions of Section 112 (a) of Customs Act, 1962 are not attracted - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Alleged smuggling of automobile tyres in a container manifested as chappals, imposition of penalties under Sec.112 (a) & 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962, role of the appellant in the smuggling, appeal against imposition of penalty U/s 112 (a) of Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
The appeal was directed against an Order-in-Appeal related to the alleged smuggling of automobile tyres in a container manifested as chappals. The investigation revealed that new automobile tyres were imported under the guise of chappals. Show cause notices were issued proposing penalties under Sec.112 (a) & 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. The adjudicating authority confiscated the goods, rejected the declared value, and imposed penalties on the appellant. An appeal was filed, and the first appellate authority set aside the penalty under 114AA but upheld the penalty under 112 (a). The appellant argued that they did not play a role in the smuggling, as indicated by the statement of another individual involved. The Departmental Representative contended that the appellant was involved based on various factors, including contact with shipping lines and address details. The Tribunal noted that the appeal was specifically against the penalty under Sec.112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Upon review, the Tribunal found that the Revenue authorities relied on various factors to implicate the appellant in the smuggling, such as statements from the shipping line Manager and address details. However, it was not clearly established that the appellant had a direct role in the smuggling. While the shipping line Manager mentioned contacting the appellant, it was not specified for what purpose. The statement of the individual claiming to be the importer indicated mis-declaration by the shipping lines, with no direct involvement attributed to the appellant. Additionally, no bill of entry was filed by the appellant, further casting doubt on their active participation in the smuggling. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the provisions of Sec.112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962 were not applicable to the appellant.

In light of the above analysis, the Tribunal set aside the contested portion of the impugned order and allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the appellant. The judgment was pronounced in the Open Court on 25.07.2018.