2024 (2) TMI 96 - AT - Customs

Penalty under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 - prohibited goods or not - existence of mens rea or not - appellant exported the said goods without obtaining the export authorization from the Competent Authority - HELD THAT - Admittedly in the present case, the appellant has exported Alprazolam tablets which fall in the schedule of psychotropic substances of NDPS Act, 1985 and is mentioned at Sr. No. 30 of the schedule of Psychotropic and the salt thereof at Sr. No. 111 of the Act for which the export authorization is required from the Competent Authority i.e. Narcotics Commissioner, Central Bureau of Narcotics, Gwalior in terms of Rule 58 of the NDPS Rules, 1985 read with Section 8 of the NDPS Act. The defence of the appellant that he was not aware of the requirement of law to obtain export authorization from the Competent Authority before exporting the said goods is not tenable in law in view of the specific provisions made in the NDPS Act with regard to export of goods falling in the schedule of psychotropic substances of NDPS Act, 1985 - the defence of the appellant that previously no objection was raised by the customs authorities and he has been exporting the said goods for the last 7-8 years is not a proper defence to justify the export of the impugned goods without proper export authorization. The goods were liable for confiscation as per Section 113(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and penalty has been rightly proposed under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act and no limitation of 5 years has been prescribed under both the sections - under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act under which penalty has been imposed in this case, does not require intend to be proved and the only condition that has to be satisfied is that the goods should be liable for confiscation which is clearly satisfied in the present case. There are no infirmity in the impugned order - penalty reduced to the extent of Rs. 50,000/- - appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues:
The appeal challenges the penalty imposed under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 for exporting goods without proper authorization.

Facts:
The appellant exported Alprazolam tablets without obtaining export authorization from the Competent Authority, leading to a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Appellant's Argument:
The appellant contests the penalty, claiming lack of intention to violate the Customs Act and NDPS Act, citing past exports without objection. They argue that the burden of proof lies with the department and rely on legal precedent to support their case.

Respondent's Argument:
The Authorized Representative asserts that export authorization was mandatory under the NDPS Act for the psychotropic substances exported by the appellant. They emphasize the legal requirements and the lack of authorization in this case.

Judgment:
The Tribunal upholds the penalty, noting that the appellant exported goods falling under the NDPS Act without required authorization. The defense of lack of awareness or past unchallenged exports is dismissed as insufficient justification. Legal precedents are cited to support the decision, emphasizing the seriousness of smuggling-related offenses.

Conclusion:
The impugned order imposing a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 is upheld, with a reduction of the penalty to Rs. 50,000. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

(Separate Judgment by Judge S. S. Garg, Member (Judicial))