2013 (10) TMI 34 - AT - Customs

Penalty u/s 112(a) - frozen peas, the goods under importation, has not been found fit for importation - Held that - it is clear that frozen peas, the goods under importation, has not been found fit for importation by the Plant Quarantine authorities as per the Plant Quarantine (Regulation of Import into India) Order, 2003 and the same has been ordered to be destroyed to avoid threat of peas cyst nematode . Therefore, there cannot be any challenge to the absolute confiscation and order of destruction of the frozen peas under import under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. It is not in dispute that the CHA filed along with Bill of Entry, invoice, packing list, country of origin certificate, phytosanitary certificate and other documents pertaining to the import of frozen peas - The plea that somebody in the appellant s firm handed over the documents to the CHA is bereft of logic and lacks conviction. Unless the appellant had decided to import these items and file Bill of Entry, the question of handing over these documents to the CHA would not arise at all. Therefore, in may view, the appellant directed the CHA to file the Bill of Entry and handing over the documents relevant to the importation is a clear evidence to come to this conclusion - the imposition of penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the importer is justified - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Penalty imposition on importer for importing banned goods without authorization.

Analysis:
The appeal and stay application were filed against an order imposing a penalty of Rs. 50,000 on the importer for attempting to import frozen peas, which were banned for importation. The Plant Quarantine authorities confirmed the ban on importing frozen peas due to the threat of 'peas cyst nematode.' The goods were confiscated under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, and ordered to be destroyed. The penalty was imposed under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant contended that they did not authorize the Customs House Agent (CHA) to file the Bill of Entry on their behalf and had sought advice on the importability of the goods. However, the Revenue argued that the CHA submitted all necessary import documents, indicating the appellant's involvement in the importation process.

The appellant claimed that they had not authorized the CHA to file the Bill of Entry and had only sought advice regarding the importability of the goods. They argued that they had requested the foreign supplier to take back the goods and were not given a notice or an opportunity to be heard during the confiscation and penalty imposition process. The Revenue contended that the submission of all import documents along with the Bill of Entry indicated the appellant's involvement in the importation process. The Plant Quarantine authorities confirmed the ban on importing frozen peas, leading to the confiscation and destruction of the goods.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's claim of not authorizing the CHA was not logical, as all necessary import documents were submitted along with the Bill of Entry. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant had directed the CHA to file the Bill of Entry, leading to the imposition of the penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal upheld the lower appellate authority's decision and dismissed the appeal, stating that the penalty imposition was justified. The stay petition was also disposed of accordingly.