9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Stay application regarding order of Additional Collector dated 9-2-90, Allegation of being Importer/Consignee without filing Bill of Entry, Personal penalty imposed, Waiver of pre-deposit of penalty, Confiscation of goods, Correspondence with Punjab National Bank, Interpretation of Sections 46 and 48 of Customs Act, 1962, Department's failure to verify assertions, Benefit of doubt to the appellants, Decision on penalty and confiscation.
The judgment pertains to a stay application filed concerning the order of the Additional Collector dated 9-2-90. The appellants were accused of being Importer/Consignee without filing a Bill of Entry for a container landed at ICD on 25-7-1987. The appellants denied any connection with the consignment and submitted an affidavit to that effect. The Additional Collector imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 50,000 along with confiscating the goods. The appellants, claiming financial hardship, sought a waiver of the penalty pre-deposit. The department argued that the goods were consigned to the appellants, who failed to file the necessary documents for clearance despite receiving a notice under Section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962. The container was found to contain different goods than declared, leading to confiscation and penalty imposition. The department opposed the waiver of pre-deposit. The Tribunal considered both sides' submissions and noted that the appellants did not file any documents for clearance and disclaimed any connection with the goods. Despite being the manifested consignees, the appellants were granted a waiver of pre-deposit due to the lack of Bill of Entry filing and their denial of involvement with the consignment. Regarding the interpretation of Sections 46 and 48 of the Customs Act, the Tribunal highlighted that the department did not verify the appellants' claims with the Punjab National Bank, as suggested by the correspondence provided. The Tribunal emphasized that the benefit of doubt should favor the appellants, especially since they did not claim the goods or contest their confiscation. Ultimately, the Tribunal found that the penalty imposition was unwarranted given the circumstances. As the appellants did not claim the goods or challenge their confiscation, the Tribunal refrained from delving into the confiscation aspect. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the penalty, and granting relief to the appellants based on the doubt surrounding their involvement and the department's failure to verify crucial assertions.
|
