1985 (12) TMI 186 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to personal penalty imposed on the appellant.

Analysis:
The appeal was against the penalty imposed on the appellant in connection with the seizure of goods from the vessel 'MANSCO-3'. The Rummaging Officers discovered suspicious packages on the ship, leading to the seizure of goods believed to be smuggled into India. The Collector of Customs ordered absolute confiscation of the seized goods, confiscation of the vessel with redemption on payment of a fine, and imposed various penalties, including Rs. 25,000 on the appellant. The penalty was solely based on the appellant's failure to file the Import General Manifest (IGM) for the cargo. However, there was no clear evidence linking the appellant to the smuggling activities or the confiscated goods.

The appellant, represented by Shri Anjaria, argued that he was unaware of the illegal activities on the ship as he was merely a Director of the company representing the vessel's owner. He contended that he had no intention to omit filing the IGM and had cooperated with Customs officials, providing all relevant information. Shri Anjaria emphasized that the appellant was not involved in the day-to-day operations of the company and did not receive any remuneration, portraying him as a victim of circumstances rather than a willing participant in any illegal activities.

On the other hand, Shri Patwardhan, representing the Collector, maintained that the penalty was justified under Sec. 148 of the Customs Act due to the appellant's role as a Director of the company and his knowledge of the vessel's arrival without taking steps to file the IGM. However, the Collector's order lacked a clear finding linking the appellant to the confiscated goods or the smuggling operation, raising doubts about the legal basis for imposing the penalty.

After considering both arguments, the judge concluded that the penalty imposed on the appellant was not legally justified. The judge noted that the appellant had cooperated with Customs officials, had limited involvement in the company's operations, and was not directly responsible for filing the IGM. The judge highlighted that the main culprit was another individual associated with the company, and the appellant had been kept in the dark about the vessel's true purpose. Ultimately, the judge set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant, ordering any amount paid to be refunded to him.

In summary, the judgment focused on the lack of evidence connecting the appellant to the smuggling activities, highlighting his limited role in the company and his cooperation with authorities. The judge found the penalty imposed on the appellant unjustified under the Customs Act, leading to its reversal and refund of any paid amount.