2014 (12) TMI 939 - AT - Customs

Personal penalty u/s 112 - allegation of abetting the importation of contraband goods - contravention of the provisions of Section 111(a), (f) and (j) of the Customs Act, 1962 - Held that - The role of Shri Kashyap J. Badekha is limited by introducing importer to Shri Arif Patel for clearance of the goods and to help the importer to get IEC. He has nothing to do with the import of contraband goods. We further find that the role of Shri Arif Patel was only for the clearance of the goods and for the clearance of the earlier consignment, nothing has been proved against the appellant, that he was having no knowledge of the modus operandi of the importation of the contraband goods by replacing aluminium scrap. Further, in this case the container was intercepted at Bombay port itself and it was opened and the appellant came to know about the container with contraband goods only after examination. In these circumstances, the appellant was not having any knowledge of importation of contraband goods by the importer. As per Section 112A of the Customs Act, 1962, the penalty can be imposed on the person who act of aiding and abetting the importation of contraband goods. As discussed above, there was no role of the appellant in aiding and abetting the importation of contraband goods. Therefore, penalties under Section 112(a) of the Act are not imposable on the appellants. - Decided in favour of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 imposed on the appellants for importation of contraband goods misdeclared as aluminium scrap.

Analysis:
The case involved the imposition of penalties on the appellants under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 for their alleged involvement in the importation of contraband goods misdeclared as aluminium scrap. The investigation revealed that a container arrived at Bombay port containing cigarettes and ball bearings instead of the declared aluminium scrap. The appellants were accused of aiding in the importation of these goods by facilitating the process through various individuals. The key contention was whether the appellants had knowledge or involvement in the importation of contraband goods.

The appellants argued that their roles were limited to introducing individuals for clearance of goods and obtaining necessary permits, denying any knowledge or participation in the importation of contraband goods. They contended that penalties were imposed based on sections of the Customs Act that did not apply to their actions. The consultant for one of the appellants emphasized that no bill of entry was filed, and the goods were intercepted at Bombay port, indicating the lack of awareness on their part regarding the misdeclaration.

On the other hand, the revenue authority asserted that one of the appellants played a central role in the importation scheme, alleging a pattern of changing goods during transportation between Bombay and Ahmedabad. They argued that the penalties were rightfully imposed based on the appellants' involvement in aiding and abetting the importation of contraband goods.

After hearing all parties and considering the submissions, the Tribunal found that the appellants' roles were limited to facilitating clearance procedures and obtaining permits, with no direct involvement in the importation of contraband goods. It was noted that the appellants were unaware of the misdeclaration until the examination at Bombay port. The Tribunal concluded that there was no evidence of aiding and abetting the importation of contraband goods by the appellants, thus ruling that penalties under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act were not applicable in this case.

In light of these findings, the Tribunal set aside the penalties imposed on the appellants and allowed the appeals, providing consequential relief as deemed necessary.