Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2014 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (5) TMI 56 - CESTAT AHMEDABADImposition of penalties - u/s 112(a) of the Customs Act 1962 - Cutoms Duty – Erroneous business diligence - Duty & Interest paid - Held That:- Duty has already been discharged by importers alongwith interest - This Court finds that the penalties imposed on the importers and their employees is not sustainable – The action of the importers or their employees in paying an amount for which was shown by the individuals who master minded the entire fraud, can at the most be an act of erroneous business diligence on their part - Such an action is not covered u/s 112(a) in as much as the importers or their employees never could have had a doubt that their goods are liable for confiscation, as the said goods were removed on BOE on which there was payment of duty - Importers having discharged the customs duty and the interest thereof on all the goods imported by them, the question of visiting them with penalty does not arise - The importer cannot be charged with the commission of omission which made the goods liable for confiscation - The importers and their employees have made out the case for setting aside the penalty imposed on them – Relied upon M/s ITW India Ltd vs Commissioner of Customs, Chennai 2006(198) ELT.117 [2005 (10) TMI 392 - CESTAT, BANGALORE] – Decided in favour of assesse.
|