2014 (1) TMI 1172 - AT - Customs

Confiscation of goods - Imposition of penalty - Held that - Commissioner has been quite harsh in deciding the quantum of penalty. Once it is concluded that omission is procedural in nature, it should be nominal and only to ensure that such mistakes do not happen again. Therefore in my view in this case penalty also has to be in nominal terms just to ensure that legal provisions are not ignored even by mistake - Penalty reduced - Decided partly in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Violation of let export order during loading process; Confiscation of goods and vessel; Imposition of penalties on involved parties; Consideration of bonafide mistake; Appropriate penalties for procedural omissions.

Violation of Let Export Order:
The case involved the loading of goods without a let export order, leading to the goods being considered as smuggled under the Customs Act. This violation rendered the goods liable to confiscation, and penalties were imposed on the concerned parties. The vessel's confiscation was initially considered but later set aside due to a bonafide mistake being acknowledged, indicating no knowledge or intention to smuggle on the owner's part.

Confiscation of Goods and Vessel:
The Commissioner accepted that the loading without a let export order was a bonafide mistake, leading to a lenient view regarding the vessel's involvement in smuggling. Consequently, the confiscation of the vessel was deemed unsustainable and set aside. However, a redemption fine was imposed on the confiscated goods, which was later reduced to a nominal amount to ensure procedural compliance.

Imposition of Penalties:
Penalties were initially imposed on the company, supervisor, general manager, shipping agent, and the vessel's tindal. The Tribunal considered the roles of the employees and the level of involvement in the procedural error. Ultimately, penalties on the supervisor and general manager were set aside, while the company was held liable for the improper loading procedure and penalized accordingly. The agent of the shipping line was also found liable for penalties due to omissions in ensuring proper procedures during loading.

Consideration of Bonafide Mistake:
The Tribunal emphasized that the supervisor's eagerness to expedite the loading process did not indicate any malafide intention, leading to the setting aside of penalties on the supervisor and general manager. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of recognizing procedural errors and ensuring nominal penalties to prevent future mistakes.

Appropriate Penalties for Procedural Omissions:
In assessing the quantum of penalties, the Tribunal found the Commissioner's initial penalty quantum harsh and opted for nominal penalties to address procedural errors and ensure compliance with legal provisions. Consequently, the redemption fine on the confiscated goods and the penalties imposed on the company, shipping agent, and the vessel's tindal were significantly reduced to nominal amounts to serve as a deterrent against future procedural lapses.