2024 (1) TMI 1124 - AT - Customs

Levy of penalty u/s 112(a)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 - Smuggling - parts of wild animals - Prohibited goods or not - allegation based on uncertain/inconclusive remarks of an inspector attached to the Forest Department based on visual examination that the above consignments in question could be Elephant Tail Hair and could be Leopard Claws - HELD THAT - The said inspector is not an expert in the field, there is no written opinion placed on record or made available, and nor is there any definite conclusion as to the nature of the consignments in question. There is a mention about the collection of samples in the impugned order from the consignments in question, but however, nothing is placed on record as to the further investigation and the result thereof, if any, by the Revenue. Hence, at the threshold itself, the Revenue has not been able to establish that the goods in question were the same as alleged and the import of which into India was/is prohibited. The appellant, though has denied being involved in any way and claimed to be ignorant of the alleged import, etc., but however, he has nowhere explained as to why he went to the DHL Office at Air Cargo Complex and why did he furnish his photo-identity proof/driving licence to M/s. DHL, but however, the above is insufficient to hold that the appellant was in fact the importer and that the impugned goods were prohibited items. The primary responsibility of proving that the goods were prohibited goods was on the Revenue, in which they have failed. The penalty imposed on the appellant is clearly unsustainable in the eye of law - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The judgment involves the challenge against the levy of penalty under Section 112(a)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the appellant for the alleged import of prohibited goods.

Revenue's Case:
The Revenue suspected smuggling of wild animal parts into India via cargo consignments from Sudan. Three consignments were checked, revealing animal hair and claws. The appellant authorized DHL to clear the consignments, claiming innocence.

Investigation and Allegations:
The Revenue alleged that the appellant conspired to import prohibited goods by posing as a non-existent company, misleading DHL, and attempting to clear the goods himself. Show Cause Notice accused the appellant of smuggling and proposed confiscation and penalty under relevant sections.

Appellant's Defense:
The appellant denied involvement, stating ignorance of the contents, and accused the Customs Officers of falsely implicating him. He argued against the invocation of relevant sections, emphasizing lack of involvement in the alleged offenses.

Order and Appeal:
The Commissioner ordered confiscation of the imported goods and imposed a penalty of Rs.10,00,000 on the appellant. The appeal challenged this order, questioning the justification of the penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Judgment and Conclusion:
The Tribunal found the Revenue's case unsubstantiated, noting lack of conclusive evidence regarding the nature of the imported goods. The appellant's actions were deemed insufficient to prove his involvement in smuggling. Consequently, the penalty imposed was deemed unsustainable, leading to the appeal being allowed.