2013 (11) TMI 1349 - AT - Customs

Penalty u/s 112(a) and 117 - Confiscation of goods as the consignees were non-existent - Held that - corrigendum to show cause notice was issued on the basis of the facts as narrated in the first show cause notice, which is not disputed by the appellant and therefore, corrigendum to show cause notice is not a fatal issue - each show cause notice must be limited to the case that is made out therein by the Revenue. In the present case, the Revenue has not made out any new case in the corrigendum to show cause notice. In fact, the proposal in the corrigendum to show cause notice was based on the facts of the first show cause notice and therefore, the said case law could not apply herein - It is noted that in exercise of powers conferred by Section 157 of the Customs Act, 1962, the Central Board of Excise and Customs made Regulations, 1998. In the present case, it is seen that the penalty was imposed on the ground that the appellant filed the Bill of Entry under fictitious names which is within the purview of Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962 - Penalty reduced in each case - Decided partly in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Appeal against penalties under Section 112(a) and Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 for mis-declaration of goods and importing them in fictitious names.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Allegations in Show Cause Notices and Imposition of Penalties
The appellants challenged penalties imposed under Sections 112(a) and 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 for mis-declaration of goods and importing them in fictitious names. The Ld. Advocate argued that the penalties should be set aside as the show cause notices did not propose penalties against the appellants initially. He cited a Supreme Court decision to support his argument. The Ld. AR for the Revenue defended the penalties, stating that the appellants attempted to clear goods illegally by filing airway bills for non-existent consignees. The Tribunal found that the appellants filed airway bills without obtaining proper authorization from consignees, a fact admitted by the Operations Executive. The Tribunal held that the penalties were justified based on the violations of regulations and filing of documents in the name of fictitious persons.

Issue 2: Corrigendum to Show Cause Notice and Legal Basis for Penalties
The Ld. Advocate argued that the corrigendum to the show cause notice did not implicate the appellant and that penalties under the Customs Act could not be imposed for non-filing of authorization under the Courier Imports and Exports (Clearance) Regulations, 1998. However, the Tribunal disagreed, stating that the corrigendum was based on facts from the original show cause notice and did not introduce new allegations. The Tribunal held that penalties were imposed for filing documents under fictitious names, falling within the purview of Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal reduced the penalties to Rs. 5000/- in each case after considering both sides' submissions.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the penalties imposed on the appellants for mis-declaration of goods and importing them in fictitious names, but reduced the amount of penalties in each case to Rs. 5000/- after a thorough analysis of the arguments presented by both parties.