2019 (9) TMI 538 - AT - Customs

Imposition of penalty u/s 112(a) and 114AA of CA - Misdeclaration of imported goods - Firecrackers - prohibited goods or not - role attributed by the Revenue to the present appellant is that he filed the online bill of entry for the said import and as such must have been aware of the fact that the goods were being declared - HELD THAT - The use of the expression must have is indicative of the fact that Adjudicating Authority is not sure about the role played by the said appellant. Otherwise also the filing of online bill of entry by itself cannot be held to be punishable offence unless Revenue produce evidences to establish that the person concerned, by his active involvement, aided and abated the importer. There is no justifiable reasons to impose penalty upon the appellant - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act and Section 114AA of the Customs Act.

Analysis:
The appeal challenged a penalty of ?30 lakhs under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act and ?10 lakhs under Section 114AA of the Customs Act. The main issue revolved around the misdeclaration of imported goods by M/s A & R Mesh Solutions, where goods declared as 'Water Glass' were actually firecrackers, a prohibited item for import. The appellant, Shri Gaurav Kumar Mishra, was implicated for filing the online bill of entry for the import, with the Revenue contending that he must have been aware of the misdeclaration. The Adjudicating Authority highlighted Mishra's involvement in filing bills of entry for suspected firms and his association with the transportation and clearance of containers containing misdeclared goods. However, the Tribunal noted that the use of the expression 'must have' by the Authority indicated uncertainty about Mishra's role and emphasized that merely filing an online bill of entry cannot be deemed a punishable offense without concrete evidence of active involvement in aiding and abetting the importer. Consequently, the Tribunal found no justifiable reasons to impose a penalty on the appellant and set aside the penalties under Sections 112(a) and 114AA of the Customs Act, allowing the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant.

Conclusion:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT ALLAHABAD addressed the issue of imposing penalties under Sections 112(a) and 114AA of the Customs Act in a case involving the misdeclaration of imported goods as firecrackers. The Tribunal scrutinized the role of the appellant, Shri Gaurav Kumar Mishra, in filing the online bill of entry and his alleged association with the misdeclaration. By emphasizing the lack of concrete evidence proving active involvement in aiding the importer, the Tribunal overturned the penalties imposed, providing relief to the appellant.