2004 (9) TMI 154 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues: Validity of penalty imposed by Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) on the appellant.

In this appeal, the appellant challenged the penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs imposed on him by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive). The appellant contended that the impugned order was invalid for two main reasons. Firstly, it was argued that the adjudicating authority became functus officio after the first show cause notice was adjudicated upon, and therefore, any subsequent addendum or order was legally unsustainable. Secondly, it was asserted that there was no evidence to suggest the appellant's involvement in the non-manifestation of goods by the shipping transport company, as the company itself admitted fault without implicating the appellant. The appellant emphasized that no penalty could be imposed without concrete evidence of collusion.

The learned JDR supported the impugned order, arguing that the non-manifestation of goods was done with the active connivance of the appellant. The JDR contended that the addendum issued after the adjudication of the main show cause notice was legally permissible, and therefore, the penalty imposed was justified.

Upon review of the record, it was found that the original show cause notice was directed at the shipping transport company and its officers for failing to manifest goods in the IGM submitted to Customs authorities. The company admitted fault without implicating the appellant. The adjudicating authority had ordered confiscation of goods and penalties but had not imposed any penalty on the appellant in the original order dated 4-7-1995.

The Tribunal held that the adjudicating authority became functus officio after passing the order on the original show cause notice, and no addendum could be legally issued thereafter. The impugned order, therefore, lacked jurisdiction and was set aside. The Tribunal emphasized the lack of concrete evidence implicating the appellant in collusion with the shipping transport company, further justifying the setting aside of the penalty.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order imposing a penalty on the appellant, allowing the appeal with any consequential relief as permissible under the law.