Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2019 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (12) TMI 792 - AT - CustomsImposition of penalty u/s 112, 114 & 117 of Customs Act, 1962 - misdeclaration of export goods - export of metal scrap to fulfill the export obligation by mis-declaring the same as gold jewellery while importing brand new gold jewellery as raw material by mis-declaring the same as old jewellery for repair, remaking and polishing - misusing the facility provided under SEZ scheme. Penalty u/s 112 of CA - improper importation of goods - HELD THAT:- The penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 is provided for improper importation of the goods. The finding of the Original Adjudicating Authority in sub para no.ee on page no.349 of Order-in-Original is reproduced in the forgoing paragraphs. The said finding nowhere indicates that the appellant had anything to do with any imports - Therefore, imposition of penalty on the appellant under Section 112 of Customs Act, 1962 is without application of mind by the Original Adjudicating Authority, therefore, the same is set aside. Penalty u/s 114 of CA - omission or commission in respect of export goods - HELD THAT:- The proceedings do not establish that the appellant had any knowledge that the documents were having mis-declaration with reference to the actual contents of the consignment to be exported. The reading of the said provisions of act indicate that the person liable to penalty must have knowledge or reason to believe that the goods in which he is dealing are liable to confiscation. Even if it is accepted for the sake of argument that appellant has authorised Shri Ajit Singh to Sign documents on their behalf, still revenue has not established that the appellant had knowledge that the goods which were being presented for export were liable for confiscation and they were different than the goods described in Shipping Bills - Revenue did not find anything irregular, had the goods described were exported. Therefore, appellant was not liable for imposition of penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962. Penalty u/s 117 of CA - omission or commission for which no penalty is provided for - HELD THAT:- The findings as reproduced in the earlier paragraph does not indicate as to which omission or commission on behalf of the appellant has rendered appellant liable for imposition of penalty under Section 117 of Customs Act, 1962 - In the absence of any such finding by the Original Adjudicating Authority the penalty imposed on the appellant under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 is liable to be set aside. All penalties set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|