TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>Tribunal reduces penalty, upholds confiscation in Customs Act appeal</h1> The tribunal partially allowed the appeal by reducing the penalty amount imposed on the appellant to Rs. 50,000 under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act. ... Confiscation - redemption fine - penalty - tug M.T. Mansi - Smuggling of High Speed Diesel (HSD) - HELD THAT:- The value of the tug was ascertained by M/s. Esvee Associates, an independent valuer, and on the basis of the valuation report, the value of tug has been ascertained for imposition of the redemption fine on the tug. Accordingly, there are no error in the redemption fine imposed for the release of the said tug. Levy of Penalty under Section 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act - HELD THAT:- It is now settled law that Section 112(a) and 112(b) are mutually exclusive and penalty cannot be imposed simultaneously under both the sections - the penalty imposed on the appellant needs to be reduced and the same is reduced to Rs.50,000/- under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appeal is partly allowed. Issues:1. Confiscation of smuggled High Speed Diesel (HSD) found on board of tug M.T. Mansi.2. Imposition of penalty under Section 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act.3. Liability of the tug owner for smuggling activities and use of tugs for concealment and transportation of smuggled goods.4. Valuation of the tug for redemption fine and confiscation.Analysis:Issue 1: Confiscation of smuggled HSDThe tribunal noted that a significant quantity of smuggled HSD was found on board M.T. Mansi during a customs interception. The Additional Commissioner's findings highlighted the owner's involvement in the smuggling activities, including the delivery of smuggled goods to another vessel. The tribunal agreed with the Commissioner's decision to uphold the confiscation of the tug and the imposition of a redemption fine.Issue 2: Imposition of PenaltyThe Additional Commissioner imposed a penalty under both Section 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act, which the tribunal found to be mutually exclusive. As a result, the tribunal reduced the penalty amount imposed on the appellant to Rs. 50,000 under Section 112(b) due to the lack of direct involvement at the time of interception and during the investigation.Issue 3: Tug Owner's LiabilityThe tribunal affirmed the Additional Commissioner's findings that the tug owners were aware of and involved in the smuggling activities, using the tugs for transportation and concealment of the smuggled goods. The tribunal agreed with the decision to hold the tugs liable for confiscation under Section 115 of the Customs Act based on the evidence presented.Issue 4: Valuation for Redemption FineThe valuation of the tug for the redemption fine was conducted by an independent valuer, M/s. Esvee Associates. The tribunal found no error in the valuation process and upheld the redemption fine imposed based on the valuation report, ensuring the release of the tug upon payment of the fine.In conclusion, the tribunal partially allowed the appeal by reducing the penalty amount imposed on the appellant while upholding the confiscation of the tug and the redemption fine based on the findings of smuggling activities and the owner's involvement in the illicit trade of HSD.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
