2019 (8) TMI 694 - AT - Customs

Penalties revoked under Customs Act due to lack of awareness; assumptions not permissible.

M/s Shri Mayeen Uddin, Md. Saleh Ahmed. Versus Commissioner of Customs (Prev.), Shillong.

The penalties imposed on individuals under Section 112(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962, were set aside as the court found that the individuals were not ... Imposition of penalty u/s 112(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 - smuggling of goods or not? - HELD THAT:- Section 112 deals with penalty of improper importation of goods etc. Section 112(b)(i) provides any person who acquires possession of or is in any way concerned in carrying removing, depositing, harbouring, keeping, concealing, selling or purchasing, or in any other manner dealing with any goods which he knows or has reason to believe are liable to confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962, shall be liable to penalty. The expressions “which he knows or has reason to believe are liable to confiscation” in Section 112(b) are very crucial. It has to be ascertained as to whether such person knows or has reason to believe that the goods are liable for confiscation for imposition of penalty under Section 112(b) of the Act. In the instant case, it is seen that the Customs Officers on 02.03.2017 found one Orange colour Polythene Bag Lying on the table of the Billing Counter of the shop. Shri Mayeenuddin informed the Officers that the said packet was kept by Mr. Rouf who left the place before entering the Officers. It is stated by Shri Mayeenuddin that since there was no other customer in the shop at that time, he was going through the Accounts of the Shop. The Customs Officers immediately took possession of the orange colour polythene packet. Md. Saleh Ahmed who is the owner of M/s Zaman Traders stated that he deals with hardware items like sanitary goods, pipes, pipe fittings etc. Both the appellants in their statements stated that they have no knowledge of the material contained in the said packet. There is no material available on record that the appellants had any knowledge of the seized gold. It appears that the Adjudicating Authority imposed penalties on the basis of assumption and presumption, which is not permissible under the law. There is no justification to impose penalty on the appellants - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues:Imposition of penalty under Section 112(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962.Analysis:The case involved appeals against penalties of Rs. 3,00,000 and Rs. 2,00,000 imposed on individuals under Section 112(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Customs officers found 20 gold bars in a shop and recorded statements of the individuals present. A Show Cause Notice was issued, leading to the confiscation of the gold bars and imposition of penalties. The appellants denied any knowledge or involvement with the seized gold, stating that another person had left the packet in the shop. The Revenue argued that since the gold was found at the shop, penalties were justified under Section 112 of the Act.Upon review, it was noted that the appellants did not claim ownership of the seized gold. The crucial aspect was whether the appellants knew or had reason to believe that the goods were liable for confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962, for penalty imposition under Section 112(b)(i). The key consideration was whether the individuals were aware of the confiscated goods and their liability for confiscation.The Customs Officers found the gold bars on the shop's billing counter, and the individuals denied knowledge of the contents of the packet. The Adjudicating Authority presumed that the individuals must have had knowledge of the gold, but the absence of evidence supporting this presumption led to the penalties being set aside. It was concluded that penalties were imposed based on assumptions and presumptions, which are not permissible under the law. Therefore, the penalties imposed on the appellants were deemed unjustified, and both appeals were allowed.