9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Appeal against imposition of penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. Analysis: The appellants filed appeals against an adjudication order imposing a penalty of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- each under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The case involved the import of Ball Bearings by Shri A.K. Jain, with misdeclaration of value and quantity to evade customs duty. The Ball Bearings were stored at the premises of M/s. Dooab Exim, where the appellants were found. A show cause notice was issued alleging misdeclaration and intention to sell the goods in the local market. The adjudicating authority imposed penalties on both appellants under Section 112(b) for dealing with goods liable for confiscation. The appellant's contention was that they were not aware of the nature of the goods and that Shri Trilok Nath Mittal had never received or dealt with the Ball Bearings. The Revenue argued that the appellants were aware of the misdeclaration and involvement in dealing with the goods. It was alleged that Shri Pawan Kumar Gupta was sorting out the Ball Bearings for further supply. The key issue was whether the appellants were knowingly involved in dealing with goods liable for confiscation. The Customs Act Section 112(b) holds liable any person who deals with goods knowing or having reason to believe they are liable for penalty. The Tribunal found that Shri Trilok Nath Mittal had not dealt with the goods in question and set aside the penalty imposed on him. However, Shri Pawan Kumar Gupta was found to be involved in disposing of the Ball Bearings, making him liable for penal action. Despite not being the importer, he was handling the goods for sale and was thus held liable for a reduced penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs. The judgment concluded by setting aside the penalty on Shri Trilok Nath Mittal and upholding the penalty on Shri Pawan Kumar Gupta, with a reduced amount. Shri Pawan Kumar Gupta's appeal was disposed of accordingly.
|
