2021 (2) TMI 205 - AT - Customs

Levy of penalty under Section 112 readwith Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 - cold rolled coil (non-alloy) - mis-declaration of the goods to evade payment of duty - secondary and defective nature - the appellant being an experienced customs broker was expected to understand the difference between prime material and secondary defective material - HELD THAT - Admittedly, no where it has been placed on record that the appellant was having prior knowledge of defective/secondary material. In fact, in the invoices, high-seas agreements, test certificates, it is mentioned that the material is of prime nature. Moreover, whatever documents have been supplied to the appellant by the importer, the appellant has filed bills of entry for clearance. On the basis of those documents merely being the appellant an experienced person it cannot be alleged that the appellant was having malafide intentions for clearance of the said goods by mis-declaring the same. The Revenue has failed to established against the appellant that he has omitted to do any act which act or omission would render the such goods liable to confiscation. The Revenue has further failed to establish the fact that the appellant abats the doing omission of the act which would render the goods liable for confiscation. There is no allegation in the show cause notice in respect of the test certificate produced by the appellant. The mere allegation is that the appellant being an experienced person should know the difference between prime and secondary/defective material. The act of filing the test certificate shows that the appellant has no mens rea and filed the documents being a bonafide facilitator. Thus, no penalty is imposable upon the appellant, therefore, the penalty imposed on the appellant under Section 112 alongwith 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 is set-aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Penalty imposed under Section 112 read with Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 for alleged mis-declaration of imported goods.

Analysis:
1. Allegation of Mis-declaration:
The appellant, a customs broker, filed bills of entry declaring goods as prime material based on documents provided by the importer. Subsequently, the goods were found to be of secondary/defective nature, leading to a penalty of ?50,000. The appellant argued lack of mens rea and contended that without examining the goods, mis-declaration cannot be alleged. The appellant cited relevant case laws to support the argument.

2. Appellant's Defense:
The appellant maintained that they acted as per importer's directions and filed necessary documents without prior examination of goods. It was emphasized that the appellant lacked knowledge of the actual nature of the goods and had no intention to mis-declare. The appellant's defense focused on the absence of malafide intent and the reliance on documents provided by the importer.

3. Revenue's Stand:
The Revenue argued that the appellant, being technically educated and experienced, should have discerned the difference between prime and defective material. It was contended that the appellant's duty was to ensure compliance with import regulations and advise the client accordingly, justifying the penalty imposition.

4. Judgment and Precedents:
The Tribunal analyzed the case records and arguments presented. It was noted that there was no evidence of the appellant's prior knowledge of the goods' nature. Citing relevant precedents, the Tribunal highlighted the necessity of establishing mens rea for penalty imposition. Notably, the Tribunal referenced the Hon'ble Delhi High Court's decision and reiterated the importance of conscious knowledge in penalty cases.

5. Conclusion:
Based on the arguments and precedents, the Tribunal concluded that no penalty was warranted as the appellant lacked mens rea and acted in good faith based on the documents provided. The penalty imposed under Section 112 along with 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief, if any.

This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the legal intricacies involved in the case of alleged mis-declaration of imported goods and the subsequent penalty imposition under the Customs Act, 1962.