2015 (11) TMI 1395 - AT - Customs

Penalty u/s 112 for abetment - the facts stated to have been admitted by the appellant were retracted - Held that - Penalties were imposed under section 112(a) of the Customs Act. In order to penalize any person under this provision of law, it has to be found that, by way of some commission or omission or of abetment of such commission/ omission of another person, he rendered imported goods liable for confiscation under section 111 of the Act. On a scrutiny of the relevant show-cause notices, we find that goods which were allegedly smuggled into India were proposed to be confiscated under various provisions of section 111, but neither of the lower authorities has brought out anything to connect any of such goods with the appellant. The finding against the appellant has to be discerned from para 18 of the Orders-in-Original. However, no finding relevant to section 112(a) of the Customs Act is so discernible. As regards the Orders-in-Appeal, the state of affairs is worse inasmuch as the appellant has been held liable for penalty merely on the basis of his statement dated 29.5.2003. We have perused this statement also, but we have not found any material therein which would show that, by some commission / omission or abetment, he rendered any of the goods in question liable for confiscation under section111. It is also pertinent to note that his involvement in relation to the imports in question is through one Shri Jamal. Shri Jamal s statement, however, does not contain any material to indicate that the appellant filed the relevant Bills of Entry or did anything in relation thereto. - Department failed to bring out any contravention of commission / omission or abetment, it rendered the imported goods liable to confiscation under section 111, therefore, no penalty is imposable under section 112 - Decided in favour of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Concealment and mis-declaration of goods leading to penalty imposition under section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
1. Adjudication of Penalties: The appellant filed appeals against the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) related to the concealment and mis-declaration of goods, which led to the confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties under section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The penalty of &8377; 1.25 lakhs and &8377; 1.50 lakhs were imposed on the appellant by the original authority, which was reduced to &8377; 75,000 by the Commissioner (Appeals).

2. Appellant's Defense: The appellant's counsel argued that the facts admitted by the appellant were retracted, thus challenging the evidence against the appellant for the penalty imposition. The counsel cited several legal decisions to support the contention that mere involvement does not constitute abetment, emphasizing the need for intentional aiding in the commission of the crime. The appellant's counsel also highlighted the lack of evidence connecting the appellant to the confiscated goods, especially in the absence of any findings on the appellant's role in the Tribunal's Stay Order.

3. Revenue's Position: The Revenue's representative supported the adjudication order, relying on legal precedents to justify the penalty imposition. The representative emphasized the incriminating statements recorded on specific dates as evidence of the appellant's involvement in the case, supporting the penalty imposition upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals).

4. Tribunal's Findings: Upon examination of the records and arguments from both sides, the Tribunal found that penalties were imposed under section 112(a) of the Customs Act. However, it was noted that the lower authorities failed to establish a connection between the appellant and the confiscated goods. The Tribunal highlighted the lack of evidence showing the appellant's involvement in rendering the imported goods liable for confiscation under section 111. The Tribunal scrutinized the appellant's statement and found no material indicating the appellant's role in the confiscatable goods.

5. Legal Precedent and Decision: Citing the Supreme Court's ruling in State of Kerala Vs. M.M. Mathew & Anr., the Tribunal emphasized that strong suspicion and grave doubts cannot replace legal proof. Considering the lack of evidence linking the appellant to the confiscated goods and the absence of proof of commission, omission, or abetment leading to the goods' liability for confiscation, the Tribunal concluded that no penalty could be imposed under section 112. Consequently, the appeals were allowed in favor of the appellant.