2022 (8) TMI 1120 - AT - Customs

Levy of penalty u/s 112(a) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 - allegation of illegal removal of container from CFS - HELD THAT - The Preventive Officer Mr. G. Raghava is said to have stated that he came to know only in November 2017 that the said container was removed illegally from the CFS when such illegal removal had happened on 16.09.2017, is a matter of serious concern since the consignment was admittedly in the custody of the CFS and for nearly two months (from 16.09.2017 to November 2017), the Preventive Officer was not even aware of the alleged illegal removal. The Revenue has failed to bring on record any material evidence to justify the imposition of penalty, more so when they did not even allege that the act or omission on the part of these appellants has led to confiscation of the goods. The penalty imposed, as confirmed in the impugned order, cannot be sustained - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Whether the penalty under Sections 112(a) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962, levied by the Adjudicating Authority and upheld in the impugned Order-in-Appeal is correct?

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to two appeals challenging the penalty imposed under Sections 112(a) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. The case involved a Bill-of-Entry filed by an importer for the clearance of goods, which were found to be different upon examination. The issue revolved around the alleged involvement of the appellants in arranging forged documents and removing the container without proper permission. The penalties were imposed on both appellants, leading to the present appeals. The key contention raised by the appellants was the lack of specific attribution of any act or omission on their part in the Show Cause Notice. They argued that they were not connected to the consignment and that the penalties were unjustified. The appellants emphasized that the theft of goods and the police complaint filed did not warrant penalties under the Customs Act against them. Moreover, they highlighted the absence of evidence establishing their beneficial ownership of the imported goods or their involvement in rendering the goods liable for confiscation.

The appellants relied on a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras to support their argument that penalties were levied solely based on statements of co-noticees without sufficient corroborative evidence. On the other hand, the Revenue contended that the penalties were justified, citing statements of individuals as evidence. The Tribunal carefully considered the contentions of both parties and reviewed the lower authorities' orders along with the cited judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras. The Tribunal noted that the penalties were primarily based on statements without substantial corroborative evidence, contrary to the legal precedent cited. The Tribunal expressed concern over the delay in the Preventive Officer's awareness of the alleged illegal removal of the container and highlighted the lack of relevance in connecting the facts presented to penalize the appellants.

Ultimately, the Tribunal found that the Revenue failed to provide material evidence justifying the penalties, especially since there was no allegation that the appellants' actions led to the confiscation of goods. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeals in favor of the appellants. The judgment was pronounced in open court on 24.08.2022.