2002 (7) TMI 620 - AT - Customs

Customs penalty overturned due to lack of evidence and ownership proof.

The Tribunal found no justification for the penalty imposed on M/s. Thangam Steels Ltd. under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. Due to discrepancies ... Confiscation and penalty Issues:Imposition of penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 on the appellants.Analysis:The case involved an appeal by M/s. Thangam Steels Ltd. against an order imposing a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner of Customs, Madras, had also confiscated used Diesel Engines, Gear Boxes, Diesel Pumps, and Steel Scrap. The appeal focused on the penalty imposed on the appellants. The consignment in question was examined based on intelligence, revealing used Diesel Engines and other items. The Bill of Lading initially indicated a different consignee, which was later alleged to have been changed to the appellants. The appellants denied ordering the goods, and investigations revealed discrepancies in the consignment details. Despite the show cause notice and personal hearing, the Commissioner upheld the penalty and confiscation. The appellants challenged the order on various grounds, including lack of evidence of their involvement in the importation.The appellants argued that they had not placed any orders for the import of the goods and highlighted the absence of necessary import documents and bank involvement. They contended that the department's allegations lacked substantiation and placed the burden of proof on the appellants to disprove involvement. The Revenue defended the penalty imposition, leading to a detailed consideration by the Tribunal.The Tribunal carefully examined the case, noting discrepancies in the consignee details and the lack of evidence showing the appellants' direct involvement in importing the goods. The Commissioner had relied on fax messages to implicate the appellants, but the actual goods confiscated did not match the amended description. The Tribunal referenced legal precedents emphasizing the importance of actual ownership and involvement in import transactions. It highlighted the absence of conclusive evidence linking the appellants to the importation, leading to the conclusion that the penalty imposition was not justified.In light of the evidence and legal principles cited, the Tribunal found no basis to sustain the penalty imposed on the appellants. Consequently, the appeal against the penalty imposition was successful, and relief was granted to the appellants.