Appeal Dismissed: Customs Act Penalty Upheld

The appeal against the reduction of penalty under section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962 was dismissed by Judge Mr. Manmohan Singh. The appellant failed to prove lack of involvement in mis-declaration, attributing responsibility to the Customs House Agent and its G.Card holder. Despite the appellant's arguments, the judge upheld the penalty, directing the appellant to deposit Rs. 1 lakh within four weeks and emphasizing compliance with penalty requirements.

---

---

Issues:
Reduction of penalty under section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962 based on mis-declaration in shipping bill and fraudulent intent to avail drawback.

Analysis:
The appeal was made against the Order-in-Appeal reducing the penalty imposed on an individual under section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant claimed not to be involved in the mis-declaration, attributing the responsibility to the Customs House Agent (CHA) and its G.Card holder. It was highlighted that the CHA and G.Card holder were not present during the investigation, and a casual worker, who was the brother of the appellant, was involved in the customs area activities. However, the Departmental Representative (DR) argued that the facts presented by the appellant's counsel did not align with the records. The case involved mis-declaration in a shipping bill for export of handicraft/furniture, which was later found to be old and used goods purchased from the open market. The appellant was accused of making a claim of drawback by mis-declaring the goods as antique without the exporter's knowledge, indicating fraudulent intent to avail drawback. The Commissioner (Appeals) had already substantially reduced the penalty, considering the circumstances and the evidence of mens-rea leading to fraudulent intent.

The judge, Mr. Manmohan Singh, found no grounds to further reduce the penalty for pre-deposit and dismissed the stay application. The appellant was directed to deposit the reduced penalty amount of Rs. 1 lakh within four weeks, with the remaining penalty amount waived until the appeal's disposal. The compliance deadline was set for 23.02.2015. The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to the penalty requirements and the consequences of non-compliance with the directive.

---