1998 (3) TMI 355 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act on the appellant.
2. Identification of the appellant in relation to alleged deflection of Nepal-bound cargo.
3. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), West Bengal to adjudicate the case.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed an appeal against the penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs imposed by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) under Section 112 of the Customs Act. The appellant contended that he was not involved in the alleged deflection of Nepal-bound cargo and that there was confusion between two individuals named Subrata and Ashim. The appellant argued that no direct evidence linked him to the smuggling operation, and therefore, the penalty was unjustified.

2. The appellant's representative highlighted discrepancies in the statements of various individuals, showing that Subrata and Ashim were distinct persons with different characteristics and residential addresses. The appellant, a daily wage laborer, maintained that he was not the same Ashim mentioned in the statements. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's arguments, noting that the adjudicating authority failed to verify the appellant's identity adequately. Consequently, the Tribunal extended the benefit of doubt to the appellant and set aside the penalty imposed on him.

3. The appellant's representative raised the issue of jurisdiction, arguing that the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), West Bengal lacked the authority to adjudicate the case. Citing relevant legal precedents, the representative contended that jurisdiction for adjudication should lie with the Customs House responsible for the original clearance of goods. The Tribunal acknowledged the jurisdictional concern but deemed it of academic interest since the appeal was allowed based on the merits. Therefore, the Tribunal did not delve further into the jurisdictional aspect.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found in favor of the appellant, setting aside the penalty imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act due to insufficient evidence linking the appellant to the smuggling operation. The jurisdictional issue, although raised, was not addressed in detail as the appeal was allowed on merit.