Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2024 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (6) TMI 778 - AT - CustomsIssues involved: Alleged misdeclaration of value in import, imposition of penalty u/s 112(B) of Customs Act, 1962, liability of employee in concealing particulars affecting assessment of bill of entry. The judgment pertains to an appeal against the order of Commissioner of Customs imposing a penalty of Rs. 5,00,000 on an individual for concealing particulars affecting the assessment of a bill of entry. The appellant, an employee of a customs broker, was alleged to be involved in misdeclaration of value in the import of "multi functional laser printer parts." The appellant contended that he was not concerned with the identity of goods and had filed declarations based on information provided by the importer. The impugned order invoked section 112(B) of the Customs Act, 1962, for imposing the penalty. The Tribunal noted that the appellant's role in the alleged evasion of duty was based on his actions as an employee of a Customs House Agent (CHA). The appellant was found to have continued clearing consignments despite being aware of discrepancies, acting as a middleman between the importer and the CHA. The Tribunal observed that the appellant's involvement in undervaluation of goods rendered him liable for penalty under section 112(B) of the Customs Act, 1962, as proposed in the show cause notice. The Authorized Representative argued that the appellant's admission of discrepancy in the latest bill of entry justified the penalty under section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962. However, the Tribunal found that the case against the appellant relied on presumptions and statements without concrete evidence. There was no proof that the branded goods were present in earlier consignments or that the appellant was aware of any discrepancies. The appellant's limited role in filing bill of entry without direct involvement with the goods was highlighted. The Tribunal emphasized that penalty under section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962, is contingent upon specific acts or omissions leading to confiscation of goods. Since there was no evidence of the appellant's awareness of the branded products or active involvement with the goods, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order. The absence of grounds for invoking section 112(a) and lack of evidence for applicability of section 112(b) led to the appeal being allowed. In conclusion, the Tribunal overturned the penalty imposed on the appellant, highlighting the lack of concrete evidence establishing his direct involvement in the alleged misdeclaration of goods.
|