2014 (12) TMI 485 - HC - Customs

Court upholds penalty for smuggling under Customs Act despite discrepancies. Decision based on evidence and precedents.

S. JAMAL Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (AIR), CHENNAI

The court upheld the penalty imposed under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, emphasizing the appellant's involvement in smuggling activities despite ... Confiscation of goods - Redemption fine - Penalty u/s 112 - Held that:- Court on a perusal of the facts of the said case found that the essential ingredients of Section 112 of the Customs Act have not been specifically spelt out either under clause (a) or (b) of Section 112 of the Customs Act - show cause notice elaborately discussed the role played by the appellant. Therefore, merely because the show cause notice does not mention Section 112(b) but mentioned Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, would not vitiate the entire proceedings; more so when the ingredient found place in the show cause notice and non-mentioning of the specific clause of the Customs Act will not vitiate the details mentioned in the show cause notice in clear terms. Hence, considering the above factual position, we find no ground to entertain the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. Accordingly, the appeal fails and same stands dismissed - Decided against assessee. Issues:1. Imposition of penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act instead of Section 112(a) as proposed in the show cause notice.2. Appellant's liability for penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act.Analysis:Issue 1:The appellant contested the imposition of penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act instead of Section 112(a) as mentioned in the show cause notice. The appellant argued that this deviation vitiated the entire proceeding. The appellant relied on previous court decisions to support the contention that such discrepancies are significant. However, the court held that quoting a wrong provision does not necessarily invalidate the proceedings. The show cause notice clearly outlined the appellant's involvement in the smuggling of goods, justifying the penalty under Section 112(b). The Original Authority considered all submissions and imposed the penalty accordingly.Issue 2:The court examined the appellant's role in the smuggling operation, as detailed in statements and evidence. The appellant's involvement in booking tickets for the passenger and facilitating the smuggling activities was established. The court referenced Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, emphasizing that anyone concerned with goods liable for confiscation is subject to penalties. The court found that the appellant's actions fell within the scope of Section 112(b), justifying the penalty imposed. Previous court decisions were cited to illustrate that the specifics of the Customs Act need not be explicitly mentioned in the show cause notice as long as the allegations are clear. Therefore, the court dismissed the appeal, upholding the penalty imposed on the appellant.In conclusion, the court upheld the penalty imposed under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, emphasizing the appellant's involvement in the smuggling activities despite discrepancies in the mentioned provisions. The court's decision was based on a thorough analysis of the evidence and legal precedents, ultimately rejecting the appellant's appeal.