2024 (11) TMI 1147 - AT - Customs

Appellant has financed person for smuggling of gold from Dubai and Sold in India - penalty imposed u/s 112(b)(i) of the Customs Act 1962 - mens rea - Commissioner held that the appellant is concerned with selling, purchasing and dealing with the goods for which they knew that the same were liable for confiscation and rendered himself liable to penalty in terms of Section 112(b)(i) of Customs Act, 1962. HELD THAT - Penalty u/s 112(b) can be imposed when a person acquires possession of or is in any way concerned in carrying, removing, depositing, harbouring, keeping, concealing, selling or purchasing, or in any other manner dealing with any goods which he knows or has reason to believe are liable to confiscation under section 111. In the present case it is not the case of the Revenue that the Appellant was indulged in any of the activities as mentioned under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act. As the Appellant did not acquire possession of or in any way concern with import of gold, penalty under Section 112(b) ought not to have been imposed. The appellant cannot come within the ambit of Section 112(b) because appellants had never acquired possession or in any way concerned in any of the activities mentioned in the Section or any measure dealing with any goods which the appellant knew or had reason to believe are liable to confiscation. In the absence of the department having not proved the knowledge of the appellant in the activities relating to the smuggled gold, there were no grounds for imposition of penalty on him. It is now well established that mens rea is an important ingredient for imposing a penalty on the persons enumerated in Section 112(b) of the Customs Act. The evidence brought out by the department nowhere suggests that the appellants were aware that the goods in question were smuggled into the India. The penalty imposed on Appellant, therefore, cannot be sustained.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Legality of the penalty imposed under Section 112(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Adequacy of evidence linking the appellant to the smuggling of gold.
3. Compliance with principles of natural justice, including the right to cross-examine witnesses.
4. Assessment of the proportionality of the penalty imposed.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Penalty Imposed Under Section 112(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962:

The primary issue was whether the appellant was rightly penalized under Section 112(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962. This section imposes a penalty on any person who is involved in dealing with goods liable for confiscation, with knowledge or reason to believe that such goods are subject to confiscation. The Tribunal examined whether the appellant had the requisite knowledge or involvement in the smuggling activities as defined under this section.

2. Adequacy of Evidence Linking the Appellant to the Smuggling of Gold:

The Tribunal scrutinized the evidence presented by the Revenue, primarily derived from a pen drive and data storage devices recovered from a third party's residence, which allegedly implicated the appellant in financing the smuggling operation. The Tribunal noted that the evidence was insufficient to establish the appellant's knowledge or involvement in the smuggling activities. The statements from various individuals during the investigation did not corroborate the appellant's involvement, and no incriminating documents were found during searches of the appellant's premises. The Tribunal emphasized that reliance on third-party records without direct linkage or corroborative evidence was inadequate to sustain the penalty.

3. Compliance with Principles of Natural Justice, Including the Right to Cross-Examine Witnesses:

The appellant argued that the opportunity to cross-examine key witnesses, such as Ms. Nita Parmar and Shri Rutugna Trivedi, was not provided, violating principles of natural justice. The Tribunal agreed that the lack of cross-examination undermined the evidentiary value of the statements relied upon by the Revenue. The Tribunal cited precedents emphasizing the necessity of cross-examination to validate statements used as evidence, reinforcing the appellant's right to a fair hearing.

4. Assessment of the Proportionality of the Penalty Imposed:

The appellant contended that the penalty imposed was disproportionate to the alleged involvement. The Tribunal found that the evidence only indicated a minor financial transaction, which did not justify the substantial penalty imposed. The Tribunal highlighted that the penalty must be commensurate with the level of involvement and the evidence presented, which was lacking in this case.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal concluded that the penalty imposed on the appellant under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, was unsustainable due to insufficient evidence of knowledge or involvement in the smuggling activities. The Tribunal set aside the penalty, allowing the appeal with consequential relief, underscoring the importance of concrete evidence and adherence to principles of natural justice in imposing penalties.