Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2022 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (8) TMI 661 - AT - CustomsSmuggling - Gold - reasons to believe - onus to believe - framing of charges - retraction of statements - levy of penalty u/s 112(b) of the Customs Act - HELD THAT:- The Tribunal in the case of D. ANKINEEDU CHOWDRY VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI [2004 (8) TMI 243 - CESTAT, CHENNAI] held that “in any other manner dealing with’ used in Section 112(b) of the Customs Act has to be read ejusdem generis with the preceding expression in the clause viz. carrying, removal or depositing etc. It is held that accordingly to the above doctrine, meaning of expression “in any other manner of dealing with” should be understood in sense similar or comparable to how preceding words viz. carrying, removing, depositing etc. are understood. The appellant cannot come within the ambit of Section 112(b) because appellants had never acquired possession or in any way concerned in any of the activities mentioned in the Section or any measure dealing with any goods which the appellant knew or had reason to believe are liable to confiscation. In the absence of the department having proved the knowledge of the appellant in the activities relating to the smuggled gold, there were no grounds for imposition of penalty on him.It is now well established that mensrea is an important ingredient for imposing a penalty on the person enumerated in Section112(b) of the Customs Act. The evidence brought out by the department nowhere suggests that the appellant was aware that the goods in question were smuggled into the India. The penalty imposed on Appellant, therefore, cannot be sustained. The appellant is not liable imposition of penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|