9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Violation of Customs Act, 1962 - Permission for loading of goods at unapproved place - Alleged connivance leading to fraud - Imposition of penalties on involved parties. Analysis: 1. The appeal was filed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) West Bengal, Kolkata, denying permission for loading Indian Milling Wheat on barges at an unapproved place, IWAI Jetty, Haldia, under Section 8 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant, M/s. Soubhik Export Ltd. (SEL), along with their appointed Customs House Agent (OLA), allegedly connived to fraudulently load the export consignment at the unapproved jetty by interpolating the Bills of Export. Penalties were imposed on SEL, OLA, and another party under relevant sections of the Customs Act, leading to the appeal. 2. The appellant contended that they had sought permission for loading the goods at Haldia IWAI Jetty, citing past instances of similar permissions granted by the Commissioner. They argued that the goods were exported pending the receipt of formal permission, emphasizing that there was no revenue loss and the export was legitimate, involving a State Government undertaking. They also highlighted the absence of mens rea and the non-dutiable nature of the goods exported, supported by legal precedents. 3. The Departmental Representative argued that SEL and OLA committed an offense by interpolating the Bills of Export to facilitate the unauthorized loading and export of goods from Haldia. The Commissioner's penalties were justified based on these actions. However, the appellant's representative maintained that the interpolation was done by SEL, not OLA, and emphasized the lack of evidence implicating OLA as an abettor. Legal arguments were presented, citing cases where personal penalties were not imposed without evidence of mala fide intentions. 4. The final judgment noted that the interpolation was admitted by SEL's authorized representative, and the absence of specific permission for the shipment from Haldia was highlighted. However, the Customs Authorities permitted the export under supervision, indicating a level of awareness. The non-dutiable nature of the goods and the absence of mens rea were crucial factors in determining the imposability of penalties. The judgment referenced legal precedents to support the decision to allow the appeal, setting aside the penalties imposed by the Commissioner. In conclusion, the appellate tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, providing consequential benefit to the appellant, emphasizing the lack of evidence establishing mala fide intentions or abetment by the involved parties.
|
