2024 (8) TMI 673 - AT - Customs

Levy of penalty u/s 114(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 - it is alleged that the Appellant had assisted the exporter to arrange lorry for export of the goods and thereby abetted illegal export of goods - absence of admissible evidence - HELD THAT - On bare perusal of the SCN and impugned order, it is admitted that the Appellant had arranged 15 lorries for transportation of goods. But there is no evidence adduced by the investigating agency to allege that the Appellant had knowledge regarding the presence of Muriate of Potash in the above containers at the time of arranging transport. While considering the very same issue, this Tribunal in M/s Vikram Logistics and Maritime Service Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs, Mysore 2013 (11) TMI 1400 - CESTAT BANGALORE , set aside the penalty on the ground that It is that the appellant or his agent or driver of the vehicle or person in-charge of conveyance did not have knowledge of nature of the goods being transported. Moreover it is not the case of the department that the Appellant who had arranged the vehicles had knowledge regarding presence of offending goods for transportation . In the present case also, in the absence of any admissible evidence, penalty imposed on Appellant is not sustainable. Appeal allowed.

Summary

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore allowed the appeal challenging a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- imposed under Section 114(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. The penalty was set aside as there was no evidence that the Appellant had knowledge of the prohibited goods being exported. The appeal was allowed on 8-1-2024.