Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2024 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (1) TMI 1124 - CESTAT CHENNAILevy of penalty u/s 112(a)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 - Smuggling - parts of wild animals - Prohibited goods or not - allegation based on uncertain/inconclusive remarks of an inspector attached to the Forest Department based on visual examination that the above consignments in question “could be Elephant Tail Hair” and “could be Leopard Claws” - HELD THAT:- The said inspector is not an expert in the field, there is no written opinion placed on record or made available, and nor is there any definite conclusion as to the nature of the consignments in question. There is a mention about the collection of samples in the impugned order from the consignments in question, but however, nothing is placed on record as to the further investigation and the result thereof, if any, by the Revenue. Hence, at the threshold itself, the Revenue has not been able to establish that the goods in question were the same as alleged and the import of which into India was/is prohibited. The appellant, though has denied being involved in any way and claimed to be ignorant of the alleged import, etc., but however, he has nowhere explained as to why he went to the DHL Office at Air Cargo Complex and why did he furnish his photo-identity proof/driving licence to M/s. DHL, but however, the above is insufficient to hold that the appellant was in fact the importer and that the impugned goods were prohibited items. The primary responsibility of proving that the goods were prohibited goods was on the Revenue, in which they have failed. The penalty imposed on the appellant is clearly unsustainable in the eye of law - Appeal allowed.
|