9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 861X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le to confiscation under Section 111 ibid. This implies that the requirement of mens rea is sine qua non to fasten the impugned penalty. Admittedly, the appellant is only a shipping liner who not only did not file the IGMs in question, but also did not file even the Bill-of-Lading. Facts borne on record reveal that the appellant has maintained all along that it never had the possession of the impugned goods nor was in any way concerned with the carrying, removing, etc., of the consignments in question and hence, it was beyond their comprehension that the goods in question were per se liable for confiscation under Section 111 (d) ibid. Undisputed peculiar facts of the case are that the appellant is neither the importer nor the owner who ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Station was detained by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Tuticorin Unit for detailed examination; that upon examination, in respect of APHU6552003, it was found that there were 1143 cartons as against the declared 1165 cartons and the cartons stuffed in the front portion of the container contained mobile accessories of various models and that the cartons stuffed behind these mobile accessories were found to contain branded cosmetic items of various brands viz., Revlon, Olay, Nivea, Lakme, Ponds and Loreal, as prescribed in the Order-in-Original TUT-CUSTM-PRV-COM-005-19-20 dated 18.09.2019, which were not declared in the Bill-of-Lading; that in respect of Container No. APHU6378118, shoes packed in carton boxes which were cover ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were sufficient to hold that the items in question were liable for confiscation under Section 111 (d) of the Customs Act, 1962; that despite the replies of the appellant that the IGMs were filed with wrong description of goods showing the appellant as the notified party and forwarding agency, the appellant had dealt with goods which they knew or had reasons to believe were liable to confiscation under Section 111, etc., and inter alia proceeded to levy penalty of ₹ 25,00,000/-, ₹ 10,00,000/- and ₹ 25,00,000/- respectively, in respect of both IGMs, on the appellant under Section 112 (b) of the Customs Act, 1962. 4. When the matter was taken up for hearing, Shri K. Murugan, Learned Advocate, appeared for the appellant an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds which he knows or has reason to believe are liable to confiscation under Section 111 8.2 So, the above Section has wide amplitude to cover any person dealing with any goods which he knows or has reason to believe are liable to confiscation under Section 111 ibid. This implies that the requirement of mens rea is sine qua non to fasten the impugned penalty. Admittedly, the appellant is only a shipping liner who not only did not file the IGMs in question, but also did not file even the Bill-of-Lading. Facts borne on record reveal that the appellant has maintained all along that it never had the possession of the impugned goods nor was in any way concerned with the carrying, removing, etc., of the consignments in question and hence, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
