9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (4) TMI 45 - AT - CustomsImposition of penalties u/s 112(a) of the Customs Act 1962 on Customs broker - import of used Multifunction Digital Photocopiers and Printers - it is alleged that the appellant had connived with the importers - evidence to prove the allegations - HELD THAT - The Tribunal in SRIVENKATESWARA REPRO GRAPHICS, BEST MEGA INTERNATIONAL, SUPREME ENTERPRISES, BEDY ASSOCIATES, DATA ENTERPRISES, SKYLARK OFFICE MACHINES, LAKSHMI NARAYANAN RAO, SURESH KUMAR KHETTARPAL, MOKSHA BUSINESS MACHINES, MR RAJESH N KUMAR KHATTERPAL, UNISTAR ENTERPRISES VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS COCHIN-CUS, COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX CENTRAL EXCISE, COCHIN 2019 (5) TMI 397 - CESTAT BANGALORE held that the secondhand Multifunction Digital Photocopiers and Printers (MFDs) were restricted goods and hence, liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act 1962, and allowed the goods to be redeemed on payment of redemption fine and penalty on the enhanced value. In addition, penalty under Section 112(a) on the firm was also upheld. There is nothing on record as evidence to prove the involvement of the appellant directly or indirectly that he had connived with the importer. It also intimated that no action was initiated against the appellant under the Customs Broker Regulations till date and therefore, the appellants claim that in good faith he had filed the documents as per the importers directions cannot be ignored. As there is nothing on record to prove that the appellant had connived/abetted with the importers in filing the documents for importing the restricted products without the mandatory documents, the penalty cannot be sustained. The impugned orders for the said offence have already penalized the importers in terms of redemption fine and penalty. As held by the Tribunal in the case of G. NARAYAN CO. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS MANGALORE 2021 (3) TMI 560 - CESTAT BANGALORE , since the appellant has not been penalized under the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, for any irregularity, the question of imposing penalty under Section 112a of the Customs Act, 1962 does not arise. The penalties imposed on the appellant are set aside - appeals are allowed.
Issues Involved:
- Imposition of penalties on the appellant by the Commissioner under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act 1962 for involvement in importing restricted goods without mandatory requirements. Summary: The appellant challenged the penalties imposed by the Commissioner in two orders for importing used Multifunction Digital Photocopiers and Printers without following mandatory requirements. The Tribunal held that the goods were liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act 1962 but found that the appellants did not violate the Electronics and Information Technology (Requirement for Compulsory Registration) Order, 2012. The Tribunal determined redemption fine and penalty at 10% and 5% of the re-assessed value, respectively. The appellant argued that there were no specific allegations against them and no evidence of connivance with the importers, requesting the penalties to be set aside. The Commissioner alleged that the appellant connived with the importers in clearing the restricted goods without mandatory documents. However, there was no evidence to prove the appellant's involvement. The Tribunal cited cases where penalties were set aside due to lack of evidence of connivance or abetment. It was noted that the penalties on the importers had already been imposed, and since the appellant was not penalized under Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, the penalty under Section 112(a) was deemed unsustainable. Therefore, the penalties imposed on the appellant were set aside, and the appeals were allowed.
|
