Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2016 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (11) TMI 139 - CESTAT MUMBAIMisdeclaration of value of goods - duty drawback - personal penalty - role of the appellant (third party) - moral responsibility - Held that: - There is no evidence on record to show that appellant was the beneficiary of the drawback amounts remitted into the account of the exporter in Bank of Maharashtra. Appellant has not admitted to participation in the offence either. In these circumstances, statements of others connected with the impugned exports cannot, of themselves, establish anything other than the outline of the transactions and the persons connected with the commercial aspect of the transaction. Without either handling the goods between the entry for export and its departure from India or being a signatory to any of the declarations in connection with the export, we are unable to agree with the adjudicating authority that all, and any, persons connected with a business transaction at a value higher than its actual worth at the time of export should be penalised under section 114 which is applicable for any act of omission or commission in relation to the contravention by the goods. Whatever may be the extent of tutelage in deviancy by the appellant, to allow such influencers to be brought within the jurisdiction of the Customs Act, 1962 has the ramification of intrusiveness into areas that go beyond the objects and purposes of customs legislation. The boundaries of action under the Customs Act, 1962 is limited to declaration (or failure to declare) vis-a-vis the compliance required thereof under the customs law. To the extent that the role of the appellant in non-compliance has not been established, he is clearly beyond the pale of penal action under that statute. The imposition of penalty on the appellant is without authority of law and is set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|