Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2022 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (2) TMI 260 - AT - CustomsPenalty u/s 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 - Smuggling - specific case of the Revenue was that there was a mismatch in as much as certain items were missing, the quantity declared was much less than the actual quantity and the undervaluation, which clearly amounts to giving the incorrect figure - HELD THAT:- When he has admitted to having received invoice and packing list, nothing prevented the appellant from cross-verifying before sending the same for Customs clearance, which was the minimum that was expected of the appellant, which act amounts to a clear omission, for which penalty under Section 112(a) ibid. appears to be correct. This is also for the reason that similar penalty was imposed on the other co-noticees, who appear to have accepted the same without agitating further. In the case of RAM LAL KATARIA VERSUS COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE [1990 (10) TMI 190 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA], it is held that the confession of the co-accused cannot be the sole criterion, but here it is not just the confession, but statement of each person is the link to the whole chain - The same view is taken in CHANDRA SHEKHAR R. SHUKLA VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, (IMPORTS) [2019 (6) TMI 277 - CESTAT MUMBAI] and hence, factually, the case on hand stands on a different footing. But however, considering the above facts and circumstances, the quantum of penalty which is normally levied as a deterrent, is very high and hence, the same is directed to be reduced to ₹ 10,000/-. There are no reasons to interfere with the findings of the First Appellate Authority, except that the amount of penalty which is ordered to be reduced to ₹ 10,000/- - appeal allowed in part.
|