TMI Blog2010 (6) TMI 802X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ious firm and obtaining the bank draft and sending the same. 2. Shri Anil Balani, learned Advocate on behalf of the appellant submitted that the appellant had not dealt with the goods which are liable to confiscation nor he had assisted the importation in rendering the goods liable to confiscation. Therefore, he submits that penalty cannot be sustained. Further he also relied upon the following two decisions of the Tribunal in support of the contention that no penalty can be imposed when a person had not dealt with the goods:- (a) Munilal Mehra vs. CC (Adj.) - 2008 (226) ELT 102 (Tri.-Mum.) (b) Jiwraj Srinivas Rathi vs CC (adj.) - 2008 (228) ELT 415 (Tri.-Mum.) 2.1 He also submitted that in case of Shri Munilal Mehra, cited by h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -rea is not required for imposition of penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. 4. We have considered the submissions made by both the sides. 5. The learned Advocate vehemently argued and submitted that of the decision of the Honble Supreme Court cited by the learned DR would not be applicable to the present case in view of the fact that the appellant was not concerned with the importation of the goods. He had also drawn our attention to the statement of the importer who had stated that he had fulfilled all the export obligations and therefore the disposal of raw silk imported in the domestic market was as per law which was only found to be false on subsequent investigation. Therefore, the appellant who had no means of inv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dealing with, in this case, is basically one of disposal of goods contrary to law. 6. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Sachindananda Banerji had observed in para 30 as follows:- Therefore when a person enters into some kind of transaction or attempts to enter into some kind of transaction with respect to prohibited goods and it is clear that the act is done with some kind of prior arrangement or agreement, it must be held that such a person is concerned in dealing with prohibited goods. The fact that the act stopped at an attempt to purchase as in the present case when the police intervened does not in any way mean that Sitaram was not concerned in dealing with the smuggled good. The evidence shows that there must have been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proceeds but the moment the goods were sold contrary to the terms of licence, they become liable to confiscation under Section 111(O) of the Customs Act, 1962. Hence, person who is concerned or dealt with in any manner liable to penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. Therefore, the appellant is liable to penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. Further it is settled law that mens-rea is not required for the purpose of imposition of penalty and we find that the decision of Hon ble High Court of Madras in the case of CC (Export), Chennai vs Bansal Industries - 2006 (09) LCX0013 is applicable. In any case, in this case it cannot be said that mens-rea was not present. In his statement the appellant had clearly stated th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
