2023 (12) TMI 792 - AT - Customs

Levy of penalty on appellant u/s 114 (i) and 114 AA of the Customs Act, 1962 - export of Bentonite Powder - exporter mis declared the goods - assisting / abetment of export of Muriate of Potash - HELD THAT - The allegation by the department is that appellant assisted the main accused in illicit export of goods. Moreover after filing shipping bill, routine examination of the goods was done and Let Export order was also issued. There is no evidence available on record to establish that the appellant had knowledge regarding export of Muriate of Potash in the guise of Bentonite Powder. Based on the fact that the Appellant had prepared the documents without the signature of the exporter, no conclusion can be drawn that Appellant was aware about the presence of prohibited goods. While considering the very same issue, this Tribunal set-aside the penalty on the ground that it is not the case of the department that driver or agent or person in-charge of the vehicle had knowledge nor such ground has been taken in the show-cause notice . There is no concrete admissible evidence to prove that the appellant had facilitated the mis-declaration of the goods so as warrant penalty on the Appellant. Considering the same, penalty imposed on the Appellant both under section 114 (i) and 114 AA of the Customs act, 1962 are set aside - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment involves a challenge to the imposition of penalties under Section 114(i) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 on the appellant for alleged abetment of illegal export of goods.

Details of the judgment:

1. Facts of the case and imposition of penalties:
The case involved an exporter attempting to export Muriate of Potash under the guise of Bentonite Powder. The Department issued a Show Cause Notice proposing penalties under Section 114(i) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. The adjudication authority confirmed the penalties, leading to the appeal.

2. Appellant's defense and contradictory findings:
The Appellant denied knowledge of the illegal export. The appellant's counsel pointed out contradictions in the findings against the appellant, highlighting that the evidence did not conclusively prove the appellant's involvement. Reference was made to a previous Tribunal order emphasizing the need for concrete evidence.

3. Department's argument and Tribunal's analysis:
The Department argued that the appellant played a key role in the illegal export, holding them liable for penalties. However, the Tribunal found insufficient evidence to establish the appellant's awareness of the mis-declaration. The Tribunal emphasized the lack of concrete evidence and the need for proof of knowledge for imposing penalties.

4. Decision and setting aside of penalties:
After considering the arguments, the Tribunal set aside the penalties imposed on the appellant under Section 114(i) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal ruled that there was no concrete admissible evidence to prove the appellant's facilitation of the mis-declaration, leading to the allowance of the appeal with consequential relief if any.

This judgment highlights the importance of concrete evidence and proof of knowledge in cases involving penalties under the Customs Act, emphasizing the need for a clear connection between the accused party's actions and the alleged offense.