Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be fully migrated on 31-July-2025 at 23:59:59
After this date, all services will be available exclusively on our new platform.
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please let us know
via our feedback form
, with specific details, so we can address them promptly.
Home
2021 (6) TMI 861 - AT - CustomsLevy of penalty u/s 112 (b) of the Customs Act - appellant did not file the IGMs in question - fake items of leading brands were being imported into India - HELD THAT - It is not the case of the Revenue that it was the appellant who filed the Bill-of-Lading. From the documents placed on record this aspect also becomes clear since the appellant has maintained all along that it did not file the IGMs in question which fact not denied by the Revenue. Section 112 of Customs Act has wide amplitude to cover any person dealing with any goods which he knows or has reason to believe are liable to confiscation under Section 111 ibid. This implies that the requirement of mens rea is sine qua non to fasten the impugned penalty. Admittedly the appellant is only a shipping liner who not only did not file the IGMs in question but also did not file even the Bill-of-Lading. Facts borne on record reveal that the appellant has maintained all along that it never had the possession of the impugned goods nor was in any way concerned with the carrying removing etc. of the consignments in question and hence it was beyond their comprehension that the goods in question were per se liable for confiscation under Section 111 (d) ibid. Undisputed peculiar facts of the case are that the appellant is neither the importer nor the owner who had acquired possession nor in any way concerned with the carrying removing etc. of the goods in question and Revenue has nowhere ascribed knowledge of the appellant as to the confiscation - the Revenue has also nowhere offered redemption in lieu of the confiscation in so far as the appellant is concerned which establishes that the appellant is in no way concerned nor was it responsible in any way for carrying removing etc. of the goods in question. The penalties as levied under Section 112 (b) of the Customs Act 1962 are not justified - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|