2010 (4) TMI 350 - AT - Customs

Penalty on railway booking agent- liability of booking agent revenue contended that booking agents are involved in transportation of the imported goods which have been held to be of smuggled nature; that while booking the parcels at Chennai the full addresses of the booking persons had not been recorded; that the booking agent had not taken precaution to ensure that the goods accepted by them for transportation through railways are not smuggled goods - Held that- absence of positive evidence indicating assessee aware of smuggled nature of seized goods - Penalty not imposable in absence of such evidence - even by checking it is impossible to determined smuggled nature of goods. - Thus no infernity in impugned order - penalty not justified.

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of seized goods and imposition of penalty under Customs Act, 1962.
2. Appeal against the penalty imposed on the respondents.
3. Application of penalty on transporters for accepting smuggled goods.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Confiscation of seized goods and imposition of penalty under Customs Act, 1962
The case involved M/s. National Star Goods Carriers, a respondent company, whose employee was found with parcels containing goods of foreign origin valued at Rs. 6,42,800 seized by Customs Officers. Notices were issued for producing import documents, but only two consignees appeared without any documents. A show cause notice was issued for confiscation of seized goods and penalty imposition. The Additional Commissioner confiscated the goods and imposed penalties under Sections 111 and 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. Appeals were filed against this order, and the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the penalties on the noticees. The Revenue appealed against this decision.

Issue 2: Appeal against the penalty imposed on the respondents
The Department sought penalty imposition on the respondent company and its employees for accepting parcels without recording full consignor addresses or verifying contents, alleging acceptance of smuggled goods without due diligence. However, no positive evidence showed the respondents' knowledge of the goods' smuggled nature. The Tribunal found no grounds for penalty imposition due to lack of evidence indicating knowledge of smuggling. The judgment of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court cited by the Department was deemed inapplicable to the case's facts, as the respondents were railway agents handling numerous parcels without detailed content verification.

Issue 3: Application of penalty on transporters for accepting smuggled goods
The Department argued for penalty imposition on transporters accepting smuggled goods, citing a judgment involving a transporter accepting goods from a fictitious consignor. The Tribunal differentiated the current case, emphasizing the lack of evidence proving the respondents' knowledge of the seized goods' smuggled nature. The Tribunal held that the nature of the respondents' business as railway agents handling various parcels did not necessitate detailed content verification, especially for goods commonly imported legally. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, upholding the decision to set aside penalties on the respondents.

This detailed analysis outlines the issues of confiscation, penalty imposition, and transporter liability addressed in the legal judgment, highlighting the Tribunal's considerations and conclusions regarding each issue.