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>Penalty under Customs Act overturned as Tribunal finds no evidence linking appellant to smuggled goods</h1> <h3>ABDULLAH RASHEED Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI</h3> ABDULLAH RASHEED Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI - 2008 (224) E.L.T. 277 (Tri. - Del.) Issues:Imposition of penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act based on ownership of seized goods and premises verification.Analysis:The appellant appealed against a penalty of Rs.50,000 imposed for alleged involvement in storing smuggled goods in a rented godown. The appellant rented the godown to a tenant and denied knowledge of the smuggled goods found by Customs officers. The Adjudicating Authority seized the goods and imposed the penalty. The appellant provided the rent agreement and tenant's contact details as evidence of innocence. The Department argued that verification showed the appellant as the owner of the goods due to unavailability of the tenant. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted the seized residential premises matched the appellant's provided address. However, the Tribunal found no evidence linking the appellant to the smuggled goods directly or indirectly. The Tribunal emphasized that penalty under Section 112 cannot be imposed solely based on renting premises. Since the appellant's rent agreement was genuine and no proof of knowledge or involvement was found, the penalty was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
TaxTMI 