2022 (10) TMI 967 - SCH - Customs

Levy of penalty - Wrong mentioning of the Section - case would fall under Section 114(i) or 114(iii) of the Customs Act? - HELD THAT - Learned ASG is not in a position to satisfy the Court how the case would fall under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, as claimed. Nothing has been pointed out how the goods can be said to be prohibited goods. Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that there is a clear finding recorded by the learned Tribunal and confirmed by the High Court that the respondent did not claim any draw back benefit. When the Revenue is not in a position to even satisfy this Court that the case would fall under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act and, even according to the Revenue, the case would not fall under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the High Court as well as that of the Tribunal. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Calcutta in Customs Case No. 5 of 2008.
2. Dismissal of the appeal by the Division Bench of the High Court regarding penalty imposed under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act.
3. Interpretation of the correct section under which the penalty should be imposed.
4. Failure of the Revenue to establish the applicability of Section 114(i) or 114(iii) of the Customs Act.
5. Confirmation by the Tribunal and High Court that the respondent did not claim any drawback benefit.

Analysis:
The appellant filed an appeal challenging the judgment and order of the High Court of Calcutta in Customs Case No. 5 of 2008, where the Division Bench dismissed the appeal related to the penalty imposed under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act. The Revenue contended that the penalty should have been imposed under Section 114(i) instead of Section 114(iii) due to an error in mentioning the section in the show cause notice. However, upon examination, the court found that the Revenue failed to demonstrate how the case would fall under Section 114(i) as claimed. It was noted that there was no evidence to establish that the goods were prohibited goods, and it was confirmed that the respondent did not claim any drawback benefit.

The court, after hearing the arguments and reviewing the material on record, concluded that the Revenue could not establish that the case fell under either Section 114(i) or 114(iii) of the Customs Act. As a result, the court found no grounds to interfere with the judgments of both the High Court and the Tribunal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as it failed to provide sufficient justification for challenging the lower court's decisions. The judgment emphasized the importance of correctly applying the relevant sections of the Customs Act and the necessity for the Revenue to substantiate its claims regarding the imposition of penalties under specific provisions of the law.