Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2022 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (2) TMI 262 - CESTAT KOLKATAExemption from Customs Duty as per South Asia Free Trade Agreement (SAFTA) by Notification No.40/2017 dated 30.06.2017 - goods imported in excess of what was declared in the Bill of Entry and other documents - confiscation of vehicle - levy of penalty - HELD THAT:- A plain reading of Customs Section 111(e) and (l) shows that these apply to such goods only which have been concealed and have not been declared and not the entire quantity of goods. In fact the Section 111(l) is very categorical that it applies to goods found in excess of what has been declared. Therefore, it is found that the excess goods are liable for confiscation and not the entire consignment imported by the Appellant - the confiscation of the remaining goods is not as per the law and accordingly needs to be set aside. The denial of the exemption certificate for the entire quantity of goods when the bulk of the goods are already covered by the SAFTA Certificate is not supported by any legal provision. Therefore the demands need to be set aside. The amount of redemption fine imposed by the impugned order as well as the penalties imposed upon the Appellants need to be proportionately reduced. Appeal of Shri Dilip Sarkar is partly upheld by upholding the confiscation of the excess quantity of goods found in the consignment over and above what was declared and duty on such quantity of pieces, remaining part of the demand and the confiscation of the remaining goods is set aside. Consequently the redemption fine as well as penalty upon the said Appellant needs to be reduced in proportion to the value of the excess goods to the total value of goods. Imposition of penalty on the Authorized Representative of the Customs Broker - HELD THAT:- There is no evidence on record that the Customs Broker was aware of the alleged irregularity. As there is no material available on record against him, the imposition of penalty on Shri Biswajit Mirdha is not justified and accordingly the same is set aside. Vehicle being confiscated and penalty imposed upon the owner Shri Uttam Biswas - HELD THAT:- It is an admitted fact that the seized vehicle had been utilized for the purpose of importation of the mis-declared goods and it is amply clear that the loading of the goods has been done in presence of the transporter, although the owner of the vehicle was not present. The owner had simply let out his vehicle to M/s. New Transport Agency, as reflected in his statement, however, no investigation has been caused with regard to the involvement of the said transporter or the driver of the vehicle. From the statement of the owner of the vehicle, it is abundantly clear that although his vehicle has been used for carrying of mis-declared goods, however, he had no personal knowledge in regard to loading of the goods. Accordingly, the penalty imposed upon the owner of the vehicle under Section 112(b) is set aside. The redemption fine of ₹ 4.00 Lakhs imposed for redemption of the vehicle is reduced to ₹ 1.50 Lakhs. Appeal allowed in part.
|