2016 (6) TMI 267 - AT - Customs

Imposition of penalty - Seizure of 62,500 strips of Sildenafil Citrate Tablets - Consignee of seized goods - Held that - the First Appellate Authority cannot hold that Appellant is involved in the smuggling of goods under consideration when he categorically gives a finding that identity of the real owner is not established. No Appeal has been filed by the Revenue against Order-in-Appeal to the effect that Appellant was the real owner of the seized goods. In the absence of any such evidence Appeal filed by the Appellant is required to be allowed. - Decided in favour of appellant with consequential relief

Summary

Issues:
1. Correct imposition of penalty on the Appellant for being the consignee of seized goods.

Analysis:
The Appeal was filed against the Order-in-Appeal upholding a penalty of ?25,000 imposed on the Appellant by the Adjudicating Authority. The Appellant argued that the seized goods did not belong to them, as the consignee mentioned was a different entity. The Appellant denied any ownership of the goods, and even the transporter did not implicate the Appellant as the owner. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted that in the absence of identifying the real owner, the transporter should be considered the owner of the seized goods.

The Revenue argued that the Appellant was correctly penalized under section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962, based on specific sections of the Order-in-Original. The Revenue strongly defended the lower authorities' decisions. After hearing both sides and examining the case records, the key issue was whether the penalty was rightly imposed on the Appellant as the consignee of the seized goods, which comprised 62,500 strips of Sildenafil Citrate Tablets. The Appellant denied any involvement with the goods, and the transporter's manager also stated that the Appellant had no connection with the consignee.

The Tribunal found that the First Appellate Authority erred in implicating the Appellant in the smuggling of goods when the real owner's identity was not established. Since there was no evidence or appeal filed by the Revenue proving that the Appellant was the actual owner of the seized goods, the Tribunal allowed the Appeal filed by the Appellant, setting aside the Order-in-Appeal and providing consequential relief, if any. The operative portion of the order was pronounced in the open court, concluding the judgment.