Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2013 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (11) TMI 1229 - AT - CustomsSmuggling - Import of bulk (commercial) quantity of Chinese silk textiles - Import done in contravention of provisions of Customs Act, 1962 - Import prohibited/restricted goods under Para 5.6 EXIM Policy 1997-2002 read with Section 3(2) and (3) and 11(1) of Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 and Rule 14 of the Foreign Trade (Regulation) Rules 1993 - Confiscation u/s 111 - Whether the appellants, who are the dealers in textiles and are alleged to have purchased illicitly imported Chinese Silk fabrics, are liable for penalty under section 112(b) of Custom Act 1962 - Held that:- Revenue proved acquaintance, contacts, conscious knowledge of the appellant including the nature and character of the offending goods dealt by him - conscious knowledge of the trader appellant about character and nature of the goods illicitly imported and his deal theron was established by the seller racketeers. His ill will and deal satisfied essential ingredients of section 112 (b) of the Act. The appellant was aware of the origin and destination of goods demonstrating his intimacy with the racketeers by telephone contacts before and after arrival of the smuggled goods in India which come to record from Table 10 and 11 of show cause notice. Positive act of the appellant making conscious breach of law brought him to penal consequence of law. Perfect proof with mathematical precision in this imperfect world seldom exists. Appellant did not deny conscious dealing of the offending goods by him. In substance, offending goods found its destination at the place of business of the appellant. Accordingly when the appellant failed to go out of the scope of Section 112 (b) of the Act, penalty was bound to be suffered. It is only the quantum thereof needs determination on the gravity of the matter since value of goods dealt by the appellant was not quantified by learned Adjudicating Authority. Considering that the appellant was involved in dealing with the smuggled goods came to in India on 22 occasions as per column ‘A’ of Table -14, in the fitness of the circumstances of the case, levy of penalty of ₹ 10,000/- for each such occasion may not be improper. Interaction was not for supply of Indian goods but for purchasing foreign goods and therefore it is difficult to accept the contention of the appellants that they did not have knowledge of smuggled nature of goods and this contention is rejected. Since the commissioner in his order has held the goods mentioned in Colum-3 of Table-1 liable for confiscation under Section 111 of the Act, the appellants are also liable to penalty under Section 112(b) of the Act - Penalty redeuced - Decided partly in favour of assessee.
|