9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (8) TMI 394 - AT - CustomsReduction in the quantum of penalty - Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 - abetment of falsely signed the invoices used for improper exportation - Jurisdiction of proceedings initiated by the DRI Officers - HELD THAT - Though the appellant has submitted that he has a good case on merit and submitted that Department has not been able to establish abetment of the appellant in the illegal export but he, during the course of argument, has relied upon the judgment of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of M/S CANON INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS 2021 (3) TMI 384 - SUPREME COURT to buttress his argument that the SCN issued by the DRI is without jurisdiction because DRI Officers are not proper officers during the period of dispute and therefore, the SCN itself is bad in law. Further, the imposition of penalty for abetment is also hit by principles res judicata as the appellant has been issued with SCN dated 13.01.2011 for the same offence by Mysore Customs Commissionerate and the same was finally decided by this Tribunal in N.A. JAYARAM, MEHBOOB KHAN, N.J. SHYLA AND RAJESH BALAR VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CUSTOMS AND SERVICE TAX, MYSORE 2018 (2) TMI 948 - CESTAT, BANGALORE by reducing penalty to ₹ 2,50,000/- each under Section 114(i) and Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. Since on these two legal grounds, the SCN issued to the appellant as well as the imposition of penalty on him is not sustainable in law. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
1. Reduction of penalty under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 from ? 10 Lakhs to ? 5 Lakhs by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). 2. Jurisdictional validity of proceedings initiated by DRI Officers. 3. Application of res judicata principles in penalty imposition. 4. Admissibility of evidence in penalty proceedings. 5. Abetment in illegal exportation based on signed invoices. Detailed Analysis: 1. The appeal challenged the reduction of penalty from ? 10 Lakhs to ? 5 Lakhs under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). The appellant contended that the impugned order lacked legal sustainability due to alleged flaws in appreciating facts and law. The appellant further argued that the penalty imposition for abetment was unjustified. The Commissioner, after due process, had reduced the penalty, leading to the present appeal. 2. The appellant raised the issue of jurisdictional validity concerning the proceedings initiated by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) Officers. Citing specific cases, the appellant argued that the DRI Officers were not proper officers during the relevant period, rendering the proceedings initiated by them without jurisdiction and legally flawed. The appellant relied on legal precedents to support this argument. 3. The application of res judicata principles in penalty imposition was another crucial issue. The appellant contended that the penalty for abetment was barred by res judicata as a similar offense had been previously adjudicated upon by a different customs authority. Legal references were provided to support the argument that the penalty imposition was hit by res judicata principles and constitutional provisions. 4. The admissibility of evidence in penalty proceedings was extensively discussed. The appellant argued that the case against them was solely based on third-party statements without proper cross-examination, rendering them inadmissible as evidence under Section 138B of the Customs Act, 1962. Legal decisions were cited to emphasize the importance of admissible evidence in such proceedings. 5. The issue of abetment in illegal exportation based on signed invoices was a focal point of the appeal. The appellant maintained that there was no concrete evidence proving their involvement in the alleged offenses. They argued that the statements relied upon lacked evidentiary value and were obtained under coercion. The appellant contended that the penalty imposition for abetment was not justified under the Customs Act, 1962. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by setting aside the impugned order, primarily based on the lack of jurisdiction in the proceedings initiated by the DRI Officers and the application of res judicata principles in penalty imposition. The decision highlighted the importance of legal grounds and precedents in determining the validity of penalties imposed under the Customs Act, 1962.
|
