Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be discontinued on 31-07-2025
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please
let us know via our feedback form
so we can address them promptly.
Home
2014 (12) TMI 939 - AT - CustomsPersonal penalty u/s 112 - allegation of abetting the importation of contraband goods - contravention of the provisions of Section 111(a) (f) and (j) of the Customs Act 1962 - Held that - The role of Shri Kashyap J. Badekha is limited by introducing importer to Shri Arif Patel for clearance of the goods and to help the importer to get IEC. He has nothing to do with the import of contraband goods. We further find that the role of Shri Arif Patel was only for the clearance of the goods and for the clearance of the earlier consignment nothing has been proved against the appellant that he was having no knowledge of the modus operandi of the importation of the contraband goods by replacing aluminium scrap. Further in this case the container was intercepted at Bombay port itself and it was opened and the appellant came to know about the container with contraband goods only after examination. In these circumstances the appellant was not having any knowledge of importation of contraband goods by the importer. As per Section 112A of the Customs Act 1962 the penalty can be imposed on the person who act of aiding and abetting the importation of contraband goods. As discussed above there was no role of the appellant in aiding and abetting the importation of contraband goods. Therefore penalties under Section 112(a) of the Act are not imposable on the appellants. - Decided in favour of appellant.
|