Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2023 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (5) TMI 571 - AT - CustomsPenalty u/s 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 - Penalty on the owner of the godown where goods were reportedly loaded - illegal procurement, sale purchase, fabrication of documents and illegal transportation of Phensedyl Cough Linctus of Indian origin in attempt to export the same illegally - HELD THAT:- The method of concealment and preparation of fake vouchers/invoices no doubt creates suspicion regarding illegal activities being undertaken by the C&F Agents. However, there is nothing on record that these activities suggest that the Phensedyl Cough Linctus was meant for export to Bangladesh. The manner of concealment and documentations could also be adopted to overcome the restrictions imposed under the Drugs & Cosmetics Act during movements within India. For violation of any of the procedures prescribed under the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, a person could be punished under the relevant provisions of Drugs & Cosmetics Act but these violations cannot be made as the basis for taking action under the Customs Act, 1962. It is also observed by the adjudicating authority, that Phensedyl Cough Linctus is a specified goods under Section 11-I of the Customs Act, 1962. As per Notification No. 31/2008-CUS. (N.T.), dated 25-3-2008, an area of 50 kms. in width from the land border with Bangladesh is treated as a ‘specified area’. In the absence of any documentary evidence, suggesting that seized goods were meant for export to Bangladesh, it cannot be held that the appellant can be visited with penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962. Accordingly appeals filed by the appellant is required to be allowed. It is also evident from the records of the present case and from the statement of the Appellant herein which nowhere shows that the Appellant was involved in purchase/sale of contraband goods. There is nothing on record to suggest that the Appellant has forged or fabricated documents and/or aided Shri Pappu Jaiswal in illegal export of the said goods. In absence of any cogent evidence, penalty imposed in terms of Section 114 is uncalled for - No evidence has been adduced against the Appellant to show his prior knowledge with regard to illegal export of the seized goods. In absence of any corroborative proof, the personal penalty imposed on the Appellant cannot be sustained and is therefore set aside. Appeal allowed.
|