9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (10) TMI 507 - AT - CustomsImposition of personal penalty u/s 112(a) of FA - seizure of cigarettes of Indonesian origin imported by concealment inside a consignment declared as Dining Sets - HELD THAT - The Appellant has deployed his employees to look after the clearance of the import consignment. We also observe that the Appellant has admitted that they have assisted the CHA in clearance of the consignment of cigarettes of Indonesian origin which were concealed inside a consignment declared as Dining Sets. Thus, penalty is imposable on the Appellant for the abetting the commission of the Offence. The adjudicating authority has imposed a personal penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- in the impugned Order-in-Original dated 26.12.2014, which appears reasonable and commensurate with the offence committed. Accordingly, there are no reason to interfere with the impugned order imposing penalty on the Appellant. The penalty imposed on the Appellant in the impugned order upheld - appeal filed by appellant rejected.
Issues involved:
The imposition of a personal penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the Appellant for involvement in the clearance of a consignment of cigarettes of Indonesian origin concealed inside a consignment declared as Dining Sets without having a CHA license. Summary of Judgment: Issue 1: Imposition of Personal Penalty The Appellant filed an appeal against the imposition of a personal penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 for his involvement in the clearance of a consignment of cigarettes of Indonesian origin concealed inside a consignment declared as Dining Sets without having a CHA license. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence issued a show cause notice alleging that the Appellant facilitated the clearance process by misusing the name, stamp, and signature of a CHA firm. The adjudicating authority imposed the penalty based on the finding that the Appellant acted as a defacto CHA, sourced the work from a stranger, and involved himself in the clearance process for monetary considerations. The Appellant contended that he only assisted the CHA and had no knowledge of the misdeclaration of goods. However, the Appellant admitted to assisting in the clearance process. The Tribunal upheld the penalty, noting that the Appellant deployed his employees for clearance and abetted the commission of the offense. The penalty was deemed reasonable and commensurate with the offense committed, leading to the rejection of the appeal.
|
