Tribunal overturns penalty in Customs Act abetment case due to lack of evidence

The Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant for abetment under Section 112 of the Customs Act. The appellant was not found to have conscious knowledge or involvement in the diversion of goods to a different location. The Tribunal ruled that the penalty could not be sustained due to lack of evidence of the appellant's awareness of the diversion. The appeal was allowed based on a binding judgment of the Division Bench, ultimately leading to the penalty being overturned.

---

---

Issues:
Imposition of penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act for abetment.

Analysis:
The appeal challenged the penalty of Rs. 10,000 imposed on the appellant for abetment under Section 112 of the Customs Act. The adjudicating authority found against the appellant for delivering imported consignment to a godown in Bhiwandi instead of the designated factory premises. However, the appellant's counsel highlighted a previous case where the penalty against the same appellant was set aside by the Tribunal. The Tribunal noted that in the previous case, the appellant was penalized for aiding in the diversion of goods imported under the DEEC Scheme. The Tribunal found that the liability of a Customs House Agent (CHA) ends upon clearance of goods, and the appellant was not consciously aware of the diversion of goods to Bhiwandi by the import license broker. The Tribunal held that the penalty imposed on the appellant could not be sustained as there was no evidence of conscious knowledge or involvement in the diversion of goods. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the penalty and allowed the appeal based on the Division Bench's binding judgment.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found the impugned order unsustainable and set it aside, allowing the appeal against the penalty imposed on the appellant for abetment under Section 112 of the Customs Act.

---