2001 (7) TMI 181 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order reducing penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
The appellant challenged the order reducing the penalty from Rs. 20,000 to Rs. 10,000 imposed under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant claimed innocence, stating he had not visited any foreign country and had not brought in the computer peripherals seized by the authorities. He argued that he was not involved in the importation of the goods and that the seized goods were purchased from the retail market for assembling computer systems to earn a livelihood. The appellant also contended that the goods were of models prior to 1996 and had not been brought into India illicitly. However, the Department maintained that the confiscation and penalty were justified as per the Commissioner (Appeals)'s reasoned order.

The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the computer parts were of foreign origin, valued at Rs. 33,800, and were seized without any valid documentation for licit import or acquisition. The parts were restricted items under the Import and Export Policy, requiring a Special Import License for importation. The Commissioner concluded that the appellant had full knowledge that the goods were smuggled into India, contravening various laws. While the penalty was reduced to Rs. 10,000 each, the Commissioner upheld the confiscation based on the circumstances of the case. However, the Tribunal noted that the burden of proof that the goods were smuggled was not discharged by the Revenue. The Department failed to provide evidence showing how and from where the goods were smuggled into the country and how the appellant had knowledge of this. As the goods were non-notified and the burden of proof was not met, the Tribunal set aside the penalty and ordered the release of the goods to the appellant.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the penalty imposed under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, and ordering the release of the seized computer parts to the appellant. The Tribunal emphasized the lack of evidence proving smuggling and the failure of the Revenue to establish the appellant's knowledge of the goods being smuggled, leading to the decision in favor of the appellant.