Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2019 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 1256 - AT - CustomsIllicit clearance - fraudulently obtained ‘advance licence’ with intent to divert for sale instead of utilisation in manufacture - ‘brass scrap’ and ‘copper scrap’ - benefit of N/N. 43/02-Cus dated 19 April 2002 - Penalty on transporters - HELD THAT:- It is seen from the impugned order that the findings pertaining to the role of the transport undertakings is sketchy and devoid of facts that would link the activity of transportation with knowledge of the illicit nature of the movement. Any transporter, in the commercial sense, is merely required to deliver goods at the consigned address; there is no evidence here that the delivery had been effected to a different location. It is also not in the nature of their professional commitment to require establishment of the provenance of the articles carried by them or to be conversant with the various schemes of import or the provisions of Customs Act, 1962. Nor are they required, under section 151 of Customs Act, 1962, to act as watchdogs of officers of customs. In the absence of any evidence of their awareness that the goods transported by them should legally have been delivered at the address provided for in the advance licences, the imposition of penalty against them is not justified - the penalties imposed on Shri Gulbir Singh Anand and Shri Naresh D Bhanushali are set aside. Penalty on other conspirators - beneficiaries of, the diversion of ‘brass scrap’ and ‘copper scrap’ imported against fraudulently obtained advance licences purportedly for manufacture and export - HELD THAT:- Customs Act, 1962 prescribes limitations for the recovery of duty under section 28 of Customs Act, 1962. However, there is no such limitation insofar as confiscation proceedings are concerned and, likewise, on the imposition of penalty. There is no doubt that a reasonable proximity of detriment with the cause is a consummation devoutly to be sought for. Nevertheless, that cannot be a reason, or a ground, for failing to act within the confines of the statute that is intended to protect the country from the ill-effects of smuggling - there is no illegality in the imposition of penalties for incidents that have occurred more than five years prior. Retraction of statements - HELD THAT:- In the present instance, it is the link between the offending goods and Shri Goel that is sought to be established through the statements whose credibility is now cast in doubt. The adjudicating authority is directed to decide afresh the submissions in response to the show cause notice to the extent that we have not ruled upon - appeal allowed by way of remand.
|