9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Violation of Section 40 of the Customs Act 1962 2. Confiscation of goods under Section 113(d) of the Customs Act 3. Penalty under Section 114(1) of the Customs Act Analysis: 1. The case involved an appeal against the order of the Collector of Customs, Madras, where the appellants were found to have exported goods in violation of Section 40 of the Customs Act 1962. The goods were shipped without complying with necessary Customs formalities, and forged signatures were used on the shipping documents. The appellant argued that they had no role in the violation of Section 40 and that the goods should not be confiscated. The Department contended that the appellant's employee acted with mala fide intentions and that there was no justification for leniency. 2. The Tribunal considered whether goods shipped without the Let Export Order and Customs formalities were liable for confiscation under Section 113(d) and if the appellants were liable for penalties. The appellant's representative facilitated the shipment without complying with Customs requirements, leading to the conclusion that the goods were exported unlawfully. Despite the misquoting of Section 40, the violation was evident from the facts, justifying confiscation under Section 113(d). The Tribunal upheld the lower authority's decision on confiscation and the redemption fine, considering the circumstances of the case. 3. Regarding the penalty under Section 114(1) of the Customs Act, the Tribunal found that the appellant company was aware of the unlawful shipment but failed to inform the authorities promptly. The Managing Partner was informed by the employee about the irregularities but did not report them in a timely manner. The Tribunal held that the penalty imposed on the appellant company was justified, considering the employee's actions and the company's failure to disclose the violation promptly. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower authority's decision on the penalty.
|
