9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Confiscation of consignments and imposition of penalties under the Customs Act, 1962. 2. Re-export of confiscated goods by M/s. Grand Prime Ltd. 3. Imposition of personal penalties on various individuals. Issue 1: Confiscation of consignments and imposition of penalties under the Customs Act, 1962: The Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta, passed an order confiscating three consignments of Tussah Silk and one consignment of Silk Fabrics, along with imposing penalties on individuals under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner also confirmed a demand of Rs. 19,32,572.00 against M/s. Olumpia Exports, imposing a personal penalty of Rs. 10.00 lakh on them. However, M/s. Olumpia Exports did not appeal this portion of the order. The Tribunal noted the Commissioner's decision and the penalties imposed. Issue 2: Re-export of confiscated goods by M/s. Grand Prime Ltd.: M/s. Grand Prime Ltd., the exporter of the confiscated goods, approached the Commissioner seeking re-export, claiming that the title of the goods had not passed to the importer, M/s. Olumpia Exports, a fictitious firm. The Commissioner rejected this request citing that equity has no relevance in tax offenses, and once a tax allegation is established, the owner's equitable right over the goods cannot nullify the penal liability. The High Court directed the Tribunal to consider the case based on the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Sampat Raj Dugar. The Tribunal, after analyzing the facts, agreed with M/s. Grand Prime Ltd.'s claim that they remained the owners of the goods as the importer had not fulfilled obligations and paid for the goods. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the re-export of the confiscated goods. Issue 3: Imposition of personal penalties on various individuals: Regarding the imposition of personal penalties on individuals involved, the Tribunal found that there was no concrete evidence against them apart from statements of co-noticees without independent corroboration. The Tribunal held that the penalties imposed based on uncorroborative statements were unjustified and unwarranted. It was noted that one individual was yet to take delivery of the goods, and in the absence of affirmative evidence, the penalties were set aside. The Tribunal modified the Commissioner's order accordingly, setting aside the penalties imposed on the individuals. This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the issues of confiscation, re-export, and imposition of personal penalties, detailing the Tribunal's decision on each matter based on legal principles and factual considerations.
|
