2001 (12) TMI 167 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
- Imposition of penalty under Sections 112(a) and (b) of the Customs Act, 1962 based on the Order-in-Original dated 26-9-2000/31-10-2000.
- Validity of the penalty imposed on the appellant for facilitating duty-free clearance of imported goods obtained through fraudulent means.
- Dispute regarding the high seas sale of goods and involvement of the appellant in obtaining advance licenses fraudulently.
- Examination of evidence presented by both sides to determine the culpability of the appellant in the customs fraud case.

Analysis:
The appellant filed an appeal against the penalty imposed by the Commissioner of Customs under Sections 112(a) and (b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The case involved the appellant's role in facilitating the duty-free clearance of imported goods obtained through fraudulent means by Shri Shashi Bhushan. The appellant maintained that he only conducted a high seas sale of goods to Shri Shashi Bhushan and denied involvement in obtaining advance licenses fraudulently. The Commissioner confirmed duty demand and penalties on other parties but specifically imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,00,000 on the appellant. The appellant contested the penalty, arguing that the high seas sale was genuine and that there was no evidence to prove his connivance with Shri Shashi Bhushan in obtaining licenses fraudulently.

During the proceedings, the appellant's counsel argued that the evidence presented did not establish the appellant's involvement in the fraudulent scheme. The Commissioner relied on testimonies but the evidence was deemed insufficient to hold the appellant guilty under Sections 112(a) and (b) of the Customs Act. The high seas sale agreement was not disputed, and the duty demand was directed at Shri Shashi Bhushan, indicating his acceptance as the importer. The absence of evidence regarding the sale of an advance license by Shri Shashi Bhushan to the appellant raised doubts about the appellant's culpability.

The Tribunal found that there was no substantial evidence to support the appellant's penalization under the Customs Act. The high seas sale was considered genuine, and the lack of evidence regarding the sale of advance licenses between the parties weakened the case against the appellant. It was concluded that the fraud was committed by Shri Shashi Bhushan with the assistance of a license broker, absolving the appellant of direct involvement in the fraudulent activities. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant under Sections 112(a) and (b) of the Customs Act, allowing the appeal in favor of the appellant.