2000 (7) TMI 708 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Imposition of personal penalty on the appellant.
3. Challenge to the penalty imposed.
4. Requirement for specifying penalty imposition under Section 112(a) or (b).
5. Association of the appellant with the imported goods.

Confiscation of Goods:
The appeal was against the order of absolute confiscation of goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, by the Commissioner of Customs. The goods involved were 162 pieces of used photocopying machines and 478 pieces of old and used accessories valued at Rs. 26 lac. The appellant was charged with importation of these goods, even though they were not claimed for clearance by anyone. The Customs Authorities ordered confiscation and imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 5,00,000 on the appellant after a hearing.

Imposition of Personal Penalty:
The appellant challenged the penalty imposed, claiming no knowledge or involvement in the importation of the goods. The appellant's counsel argued that the penalty was unjust as there was no evidence linking the appellant to the imported goods, except for the Bill of Lading being in the name of the appellant's firm. The appellant maintained that he neither ordered nor paid for the goods. The Customs Authorities failed to produce substantial evidence supporting the charge of importation against the appellant.

Challenge to Penalty Imposed:
The appellant's counsel contended that the penalty was illegal and unjust, emphasizing the lack of findings indicating the appellant's involvement in the importation of goods. The order did not specify whether the penalty was imposed under Section 112(a) or (b) of the Customs Act. The counsel argued that the order imposing penalty must explicitly state the relevant clause under which the penalty is imposed, citing a Tribunal case for reference.

Association of the Appellant with Imported Goods:
The Customs Authorities argued that the Bill of Lading, naming the appellant's firm, indicated the appellant's association with the imported goods. However, the appellant consistently denied any involvement with the goods and maintained that he had not imported or paid for them. The Commissioner's finding of the appellant's involvement was vague, stating that the appellant's involvement could not be ruled out. The Tribunal held that such vague observations were insufficient to justify the imposition of a penalty, emphasizing the requirement for a clear link between the appellant's actions and the goods liable for confiscation.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order relating to the appellant, as the imposition of the penalty was deemed illegal and unjustified due to the lack of concrete evidence establishing the appellant's association with the imported goods.