9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (10) TMI 1049 - AT - CustomsLevy of penalty u/s 112 A of the Customs Act 1962 - import of 475 cartons containing artificial flowers, photo frames, fancy mirrors etc. - goods imported by resorting to undervaluation - wilful mis-declaration - HELD THAT - No acts of omission or commission, which would render the goods liable for confiscation have been alleged or proved on the part of the appellant. No charge of abetment is also evidenced against the appellant. Penalty imposed on the appellant is set aside - Appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
Challenge to penalty imposed under Section 112 A of the Customs Act 1962. Summary: In the present appeal, the appellant challenged the penalty imposed under Section 112 A of the Customs Act 1962. The case involved an importer who had imported goods and was alleged to have resorted to undervaluation. The Adjudication Authority confirmed a differential duty and imposed penalties under Sections 112A and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. The Appellate Authority set aside the penalty under Section 114AA but upheld the penalty under Section 112A. The appellant filed the present appeal against this decision. The appellant argued that he was illegally held by investigating officers and forced to give a statement, which was later retracted. The appellant contended that there was no independent corroborative evidence to support the undervaluation allegations. The appellant also cited previous Tribunal orders where penalties were set aside due to lack of clear evidence of connivance. The Tribunal found that there was no clear evidence of abetment or instigation by the appellant in undervaluing the goods, and set aside the penalty imposed under Section 112A. The Departmental Representative reiterated the findings of the Adjudication/Appellate Authority, emphasizing the importance of the statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. However, the Tribunal noted that no acts of omission or commission were alleged against the appellant, and no charge of abetment was proven. The Tribunal found that the penalty imposed on the appellant was not sustainable and set it aside, granting consequential relief. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant under Section 112A of the Customs Act, 1962.
|
