9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty on the appellant under the Customs Act for involvement in the importation of ball and roller bearings. 2. Consideration of the appellant's role in relation to the importation by M/s. Marshall Impex. 3. Examination of evidence and findings to determine the appellant's liability for penalty. Analysis: 1. The appellant was penalized under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act for his involvement in the importation of ball and roller bearings. The charge was based on his association with M/s. Marshall Impex and its proprietor in importing goods under a specific Bill of Entry. The penalty was imposed following the findings in the impugned order related to the importation of the consignment. 2. The appellant's advocate argued that the Tribunal had previously exonerated M/s. Marshall Impex and its proprietor, Shri K.R. Thanna, in a separate case involving misdeclaration during importation. The Tribunal found no mens rea on their part and granted them the benefit of re-export due to mistaken supply. The advocate contended that since M/s. Marshall Impex was deemed innocent, the same reasoning should apply to the present appellant, as there was no evidence of contravention against him. 3. The advocate further emphasized that there were no findings implicating the appellant in any contravention related to the importation. The defense presented by the appellant indicated his lack of involvement in the importation process conducted by M/s. Marshall Impex. The Tribunal's previous decision exonerating M/s. Marshall Impex was cited as a basis for setting aside the penalty imposed on the appellant. 4. The Departmental Representative defended the penalty imposition, asserting that the appellant's role should be independently assessed regardless of M/s. Marshall Impex's case. The Commissioner's examination of the appellant's involvement was deemed sufficient for sustaining the penalty. 5. Upon reviewing the submissions, the Tribunal noted the exoneration of M/s. Marshall Impex and its proprietor in a previous case due to a mistaken supply without mens rea. The Tribunal emphasized the lack of deliberate defiance of the law or dishonest conduct, leading to the setting aside of the penalty imposed on Shri K.R. Thanna. This decision was considered applicable to the present appellant, as he was linked to the importation of M/s. Marshall Impex, who had been exonerated. Consequently, the penalty of Rs. 1 lakh imposed on the appellant was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.
|
