2018 (5) TMI 844 - AT - Customs

Penalty u/s 114 of CA - Smuggling of prohibited goods - Red Sanders - Held that - excepting the job profile i.e. booking of airlines at negotiated price and receiving of E-mails from the concerned persons the appellant did not state anything with regard to his knowledge of exportation of prohibited Red Sanders - it is not the case of Revenue that the appellant was either involved in smuggling of the prohibited goods or encouraged and supported the wrong doer in doing the wrongful act in attempting to export the goods - penalty u/s 114 cannot be sustained - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Imposition of penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 on the appellant for facilitating the export of prohibited goods without knowledge or involvement in smuggling.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal against an order by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) regarding the imposition of a penalty on the appellant for his alleged involvement in the attempted export of prohibited Red Sanders. The appellant, working as a Custom Executive for a freight forwarder, claimed that his job profile was limited to booking airlines at negotiated prices and handling related documentation. The Customs Department initiated show cause proceedings after discovering Red Sanders, a prohibited species, hidden within a shipment declared as "Brake Pad for Vehicle." The appellant was penalized under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962, for facilitating the export of the restricted goods. The Adjudicating Authority relied on a statement from the appellant, recorded on 07/05/2014, to support the penalty imposition.

Upon review, the tribunal found that the appellant's statement did not indicate any knowledge or involvement in the illegal exportation of Red Sanders. The appellant's duties were limited to airline bookings and administrative tasks, and there was no evidence to suggest his participation in smuggling activities or intentional support for the wrongful act. The tribunal concluded that the penalty under Section 114 of the Act could not be sustained against the appellant based on the available information.

The tribunal, after considering the arguments from both sides and examining the case records, determined that the penalty imposed on the appellant was unjustified. The tribunal set aside the penalty and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant. The decision was pronounced in open court on 24/04/2018 by Shri S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) of the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI.