Tribunal Overturns Penalty for Mis-Declaration; No Evidence Found Against Appellant, Deems Actions Bona Fide.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, overturning the penalty imposed on the appellant under Sections 112 (a) and 112 (b) of the Customs Act, 1962, for alleged involvement in mis-declaration and undervaluation of imported consignments. The Tribunal found no incriminating evidence against the appellant, who was deemed to have acted under a bona fide belief, and thus no penalty was deemed imposable. Consequently, the Tribunal provided consequential relief to the appellant.

---

---

Issues involved:
The judgment involves the imposition of a penalty under Sections 112 (a) and 112 (b) of the Customs Act, 1962 for mis-declaration and undervaluation of imported consignments, and the appellant's appeal against the penalty.

Detailed Summary:

Issue 1: Mis-declaration and undervaluation of imported consignments
- An intelligence report indicated mis-declaration and undervaluation of consignments imported from Hongkong and China.
- Investigation revealed that a partnership company, M/s A.S.S.Tradcom, imported consignments using the IEC registered in the name of another person.
- Customs broker for the imports, M/s Modern Agency, was involved in clearing the consignments.
- The goods were found to be mis-declared and undervalued, leading to suspicions of suppression and smuggling.
- Statements of involved parties, including partners of the importer and customs broker, revealed a scheme involving mis-declared imports to evade customs duty.
- The appellant, a customs clearing company proprietor, was alleged to have acted as a middleman in the scheme.

Issue 2: Imposition of penalty under Sections 112 (a) and 112 (b) of the Customs Act, 1962
- A show-cause notice was issued to the appellant, holding him responsible for facilitating the mis-declared imports.
- The appellant denied involvement in filing Bills of Entry or import of the consignments, claiming to have been contacted for help in clearance.
- The appellant's statement during investigation indicated that he informed the importer about the DRI alert and his inability to assist in clearance.
- The appellant's actions were deemed to be under a bonafide belief, and no incriminating evidence was found against him.
- The Tribunal held that no penalty was imposable on the appellant and set aside the imposed penalty.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, providing consequential relief to the appellant, based on the lack of evidence implicating him in the mis-declaration and undervaluation of imported consignments, ultimately overturning the penalty imposed under Sections 112 (a) and 112 (b) of the Customs Act, 1962.

---