Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2013 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (3) TMI 348 - AT - CustomsNon authorization to act as an agent of the ten consignees - all the addresses of the purported consignees given by the respondent were found incomplete/fake - benefit of Notification No. 171/93-Cus., dt. 16-9-1993 availed on the imported goods declared as gifts exceeding the value of Rs. 10,000/- - SCN issued that as the goods in question could not be classified as ‘gift’ and were actually dutiable proposing to confiscate the imported goods with demand the duty confirmed along with interest and penalty - FAA sett aside the demand raised against the courier company and also the penalties imposed - Held that:- The respondent’s action of filing the courier Bill of Entry with the other available material would itself indicate that the respondent had been functioning as a courier. It is clear from the facts on record that the respondent did not import consignment and is not liable to pay the Customs duty as per the provisions of Customs Act, 1962, as he has filed courier Bill of Entry in proper prescribed format. This fact being undisputed, the penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority under Section 114A of Customs Act, 1962 was unwarranted and was correctly set aside by the first appellate authority. As regards penalty under Section 112 of Customs Act, 1962 imposed on the proprietor of the courier firm can be invocable as it is undisputed that he has filed a courier Bill of Entry and the consignment which was sought to be cleared under courier regulations, is confiscated by the lower authorities. The respondent courier firm or its proprietor is not in appeal against absolute confiscation of the cigarettes by the first appellate authority. In such a situation, the provisions of Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 can be invoked against the firm or its proprietor, as the proprietor and the firm are not different entities. As the proprietor of the courier firm was not in India when the consignment was received and travelling abroad, ends of justice would meet if the penalty imposed on the said proprietor is reduced to Rs. 25,000/-. Accordingly, I modify the order of the first appellate authority to the extent that Shri Sujal Patel, Proprietor of M/s. ACX International is liable to be imposed by a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousands only) under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962.
|