1990 (12) TMI 207 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against penalty imposed by Collector of Customs (Preventive), West Bengal on appellants' firm for involvement in attempted import of Hashish concealed in heavy machines.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Imposition of Penalty:
The appeal was filed against the penalty of Rs. 5,000 imposed on the appellants' firm by the Collector of Customs (Preventive), West Bengal for their alleged involvement in the attempted import of Hashish concealed within heavy machines. The penalty was imposed under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962, which deals with acts or omissions rendering goods liable for confiscation under Section 113.

2. Factual Background:
The case involved the interception of a truck loaded with heavy machines containing Hashish on 12-7-1986 near a petrol pump in West Bengal. Subsequent investigations revealed the involvement of the appellants' firm, a clearing agency in Calcutta, in the preparation of shipping documents related to the seized goods.

3. Contentions of the Parties:
The appellants' advocate argued that there was insufficient evidence linking the firm to any act or omission leading to the goods' confiscation. On the other hand, the Respondent's representative contended that the firm's actions showed haste and lack of diligence, justifying the penalty under Section 114.

4. Legal Analysis:
The Tribunal examined the provisions of Section 114 and Section 113(d) of the Customs Act to determine the legality of the penalty. The Tribunal analyzed the statements and evidence presented during the investigation, particularly focusing on the contradictory statements regarding the preparation date of the shipping bill.

5. Collector's Order and Tribunal's Decision:
The Tribunal reviewed the Collector's order, which concluded that the appellants' firm displayed haste and lack of diligence in preparing the shipping bill, potentially rendering the goods liable for confiscation. However, the Tribunal found the Collector's reasoning vague and lacking concrete evidence to establish the firm's involvement beyond doubt. Consequently, the Tribunal granted the benefit of doubt to the appellants and set aside the imposed penalty of Rs. 5,000.

6. Conclusion:
The Tribunal's decision highlighted the importance of substantial evidence and clear linkage between the firm's actions and the goods' confiscation to justify the penalty under Section 114. In this case, the lack of definitive proof led to the reversal of the penalty imposed on the appellants' firm.

This detailed analysis outlines the key legal aspects, arguments presented by both parties, and the Tribunal's reasoning in overturning the penalty imposed on the appellants' firm in connection with the attempted import of Hashish.