2017 (1) TMI 337 - AT - Customs

Absolute confiscation - Baggage rules - Imposition of penalty u/s 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 and section 117 of the Act - reason for imposition of penalty on appellant was that consignment received by the postal authorities bore the name of the appellant along with his address. Held that - The appellant in his very statement has denied his connection with the said goods. There is virtually no other evidence brought by the Revenue to show that it was the appellant who had ordered for the said goods. As rightly pointed out by the appellant, post parcels are delivered as window delivery and anybody could have got the clearance of the same. It is common fact that in such type of contrabaned goods, the importers do not give their own name and address and use the name and address of other others non related parties. As such, we are of the view that the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt inasmuch as Revenue has not produced any evidence to show any connection of the imported goods with the appellant. Penalty set aside - absolute confiscation upheld - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Imposition of penalty under section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 and section 117 of the Act based on intercepted parcels containing steroids and stimulants.

Analysis:
The case involved the interception of two post parcels containing steroids and stimulants consigned in the name of the appellant. The Customs officers seized the parcels and drew representative samples for testing. The appellant denied any connection with the parcels, stating that his name and address were misused, and he had not ordered the goods. The seized goods were valued at ?63,27,744 based on similar items found online. The adjudicating authority proposed absolute confiscation of the goods and imposed penalties on the appellant. The appellant contested, arguing that he had no involvement in importing the goods and lacked the financial means to do so. The main contention was that someone else might have used his name and address for clearance. The Tribunal noted that the only basis for imposing penalties was the appellant's name on the parcels. However, the appellant consistently denied any association with the goods and highlighted the possibility of misuse of his identity for clearance, which is common in contraband cases. The Tribunal found no concrete evidence linking the appellant to the imported goods and granted him the benefit of doubt. Consequently, while affirming the confiscation of the goods, the penalties imposed on the appellant were set aside, and his appeal was allowed on this ground.