2002 (10) TMI 619 - AT - Customs

Tribunal Upholds Penalty for Bill Tampering and Unauthorized Goods Removal

The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed under Section 112, finding the appellant involved in tampering with bills of entry to evade interest payment. It ... Penalty - Assessment - Evidence - Document, tampering with Issues:1. Imposition of penalty under Section 112 of the Act.2. Allegations of tampering with bills of entry.3. Application of clause (j) of Section 111 for confiscation of goods.4. Dispute regarding interest payment and penalty amount.Analysis:1. Imposition of Penalty under Section 112:The appeal challenged the penalty of Rs. 20 lakhs imposed by the Commissioner under Section 112 of the Act. The appellant contended that there was no direct evidence of tampering by the company or its employees, and the circumstantial evidence was insufficient. However, the Tribunal found that the evidence pointed directly towards the appellant's involvement in forgery. It was established that the tampering of bills of entry was done for the sole benefit of the appellant to evade payment of interest amounting to Rs. 21 lakhs. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed by the Commissioner.2. Allegations of Tampering with Bills of Entry:The investigation revealed that the dates on the bills of entry were altered to show a later return date than the actual dates. The appellant's representative, Kamdar, accepted receiving the bills of entry on specific dates and having possession of them until duty payment. His statement indicated a motive for tampering due to the company's financial position. The Tribunal considered this direct evidence of forgery, with the appellant being the sole beneficiary. The manipulation was deemed to be carried out by or under the instruction of the appellant for its own advantage.3. Application of Clause (j) of Section 111 for Confiscation:Clause (j) of Section 111 of the Act pertains to the confiscation of goods removed without proper permission or contrary to the terms of permission. In this case, the goods were attempted to be removed without paying the required interest, thus violating the terms of permission for removal from the customs area. The Tribunal found no grounds to reduce the penalty as the appellant sought to evade payment of interest amounting to Rs. 20 lakhs.4. Dispute Regarding Interest Payment and Penalty Amount:The appellant disputed the penalty amount, claiming that a significant portion of the interest had already been paid. The Tribunal acknowledged the lack of clarity in this matter and remanded it to the Assistant Commissioner to determine the exact amount of interest paid by the appellant. The Assistant Commissioner was tasked with verifying the payments and either demanding any deficiency in interest or confirming that no further interest was payable.In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed under Section 112, established the appellant's involvement in tampering with bills of entry, confirmed the violation of clause (j) of Section 111, and remanded the matter for clarification on interest payments.