TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal overturns penalty for customs violation, citing lack of evidence and distinction between roles.</h1> <h3>M/s. Tejpal Sharma Versus C.C. New Delhi (Import & General)</h3> M/s. Tejpal Sharma Versus C.C. New Delhi (Import & General) - TMI Issues:Penalty imposed under Section 112(a)(i) read with Section 114 AA of the Customs Act, 1962 upon the appellant for involvement in the importation of restricted goods.Analysis:The appeal challenged the penalty imposed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) under the Customs Act, 1962. The case involved the discovery of undeclared restricted goods, firecrackers, concealed with declared goods during a customs examination. The appellant was alleged to have facilitated the clearance of goods by introducing a middleman to the Customs House Agent (CHA). The appellant denied involvement with the importer and claimed to have no knowledge of the concealed goods. The appellant's advocate cited precedents to argue that mere facilitation of meetings between parties does not imply complicity in the offense. The Departmental Representative (DR) reiterated the findings of the impugned order.The Tribunal noted that the appellant's role was limited to introducing a middleman and was not directly connected to the importer or aware of the concealed goods. Relying on the cited precedents, the Tribunal held that acting as a facilitator without direct involvement in the clearance of prohibited goods does not warrant imposition of penalty. The Tribunal emphasized the lack of positive evidence linking the appellant to the offense. It concluded that since the appellant was not responsible for the importation of the restricted goods and merely acted as a facilitator, the penalty under Section 112 read with Section 114 of the Customs Act could not be upheld.In the absence of evidence implicating the appellant in the importation of restricted goods, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant. The decision highlighted the distinction between active involvement in customs violations and mere facilitation, ultimately leading to the reversal of the penalty imposed on the appellant.
TaxTMI 