2023 (2) TMI 245 - HC - Customs

Levy of penalty under Section 114(i) of Customs Act, 1962 - whether the orders passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) and the learned Tribunal are unreasoned and non-speaking orders? - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - The impugned decision turned on findings of facts as noted by the Adjudicating Authority. The order-in-appeal dated 13.05.2015 is a short order, however, it is not an unreasoned one. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) had found no infirmity with the decision of the Adjudicating Authority and its findings that certain parties were involved in the illegal export of Red Sandalwood/Red Sanders and therefore, did not interfere with the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority. The learned Tribunal has also not found any grounds to interfere with the findings recorded by the Adjudicating Authority. The learned Tribunal concluded that the appellant was remiss as he had not made proper enquiry. The learned Tribunal had also observed that the appellant was aware of the prohibited goods and accordingly dismissed the appeals. It is clear from the impugned order that the learned Tribunal had found no reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the Adjudicating Authority. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Impugning an order dated 20.11.2017 by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal.
2. Penalty imposed under Section 114(i) of Customs Act, 1962.
3. Allegations of involvement in illegal export of Red Sandalwood/Red Sanders.
4. Unreasoned orders passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) and the Tribunal.
5. Lack of examination of a Chinese national and absence of punishment on consignors.
6. Failure to conduct a proper inquiry by the appellant.
7. Dismissal of appeals by the Tribunal.

Analysis:
1. The appellant challenged an order by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 20.11.2017, which upheld a penalty of &8377;15 lakhs imposed under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962, relating to consignments of prohibited goods - Red Sandalwood/Red Sanders. The appellant acted as a consolidator for courier companies and was found to have accepted consignments from individuals not present in India during booking.

2. The Adjudicating Authority found discrepancies in the appellant's statements and evidence, concluding that the appellant lacked the authority to accept bookings on behalf of courier companies, leading to the penalty imposition. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) and the Tribunal upheld this decision, citing no infirmity in the findings of the Adjudicating Authority.

3. The appellant raised concerns about the lack of examination of a Chinese national and absence of punishment on consignors. However, as the individuals were not in India during booking, no proceedings were deemed necessary against them. The Tribunal noted the appellant's failure to conduct a proper inquiry and awareness of dealing with prohibited goods, leading to the dismissal of appeals.

4. The appellant argued that the orders by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) and the Tribunal were unreasoned. However, the courts found the decisions based on factual findings and upheld the Adjudicating Authority's conclusions, dismissing the appeal due to the lack of substantial legal questions.

5. Ultimately, the Tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the Adjudicating Authority's findings, leading to the dismissal of the appeal by the High Court. The judgment highlights the importance of proper inquiry, adherence to regulations, and the consequences of involvement in illegal activities.