1998 (6) TMI 324 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Penalty imposed under Sec.112 of the Customs Act on the appellant.
2. Appellant's role as a shipping agent versus a clearing agent.
3. Evidence supporting the appellant's involvement in unauthorized clearance of goods.
4. Reduction of penalty amount from Rs. 25,000 to Rs. 7,500.

Analysis:

1. The appellant was penalized under Sec.112 of the Customs Act for his involvement in the unauthorized clearance of goods. The goods in question, including dutiable and restricted items, arrived in the name of a passenger but were actually sent by a third party from Dubai. The appellant's role in arranging the clearance was confirmed by statements from the passenger and the appellant himself. The Addl. Commissioner ordered absolute confiscation of the seized goods and imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000 on the appellant.

2. The appellant's counsel argued that he was merely a shipping agent and not a clearing agent in this case. It was contended that no baggage declaration was filed, and the appellant was not directly involved in the importation process. The counsel also raised concerns about the Addl. Commissioner referring to the appellant as a clearing agent, which was not part of the original show cause notice, potentially vitiating the order.

3. The Departmental Representative highlighted that the seizure of goods was based on prior information, and the statements given by the passenger were corroborated by the appellant's own statement. It was revealed that the appellant had a systematic arrangement for clearing unaccompanied baggage in a similar manner in the past. The evidence suggested the deep involvement of the appellant in the unauthorized clearance of goods.

4. Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal found that the appellant was significantly involved in the unauthorized clearance scheme. The Addl. Commissioner's decision to impose a penalty on the appellant was upheld, although the penalty amount was reduced from Rs. 25,000 to Rs. 7,500 due to the value of the goods involved. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's actions warranted penalty, despite the reference to his responsibility as a clearing agent not being a primary ground for the charge. The appeal was rejected, affirming the reduced penalty amount.