1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
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>Personal Penalties Under Customs Act: No Mens Rea Needed</h1> The High Court of Judicature at Madras affirmed that no mens rea is necessary for imposing personal penalties under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, ... Penalty - Customs Issues Involved:1. Requirement of mens rea for levying personal penalty u/s 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.Summary:1. Requirement of mens rea for levying personal penalty u/s 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962:The High Court of Judicature at Madras addressed whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that no mens rea was required for levying personal penalty u/s 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The applicant imported palmolein and got it cleared under 'Open General Licence' (OGL). However, it was later found that the bill of lading was pre-dated, leading to the imposition of personal penalty under Section 112 of the Act. The applicant contended that personal penalty requires deliberate action or knowledge (mens rea), and its absence would make the imposition of such penalty without authority of law.The Court reviewed various precedents and concluded that in cases of violations of economic laws, including customs, the element of mens rea is not a necessary ingredient for imposing penalties. The Court held that the establishment of blameworthy conduct, proven by the contravention of civil obligations, suffices to justify the imposition of personal penalties in adjudicatory proceedings. The Court emphasized that the nature of penalties under Section 112(a) is remedial and corrective, differing from criminal penalties which require proof of mens rea.The Court referenced several decisions, including:- Director of Enforcement v. M/s. M.CT.M. Corporation Private Ltd. (1996), which clarified that proceedings under economic laws are adjudicatory and not criminal, and do not require proof of mens rea.- Gujarat Travancore Agency v. I.T. Commr., Kerala (1989), which distinguished between civil obligations under tax laws and criminal penalties, stating that mens rea is not required for the former.- Vijaya Electricals v. State of Tamil Nadu (1991), which held that making a false representation under tax laws constitutes blameworthy conduct sufficient to impose penalties without proving mens rea.The Court concluded that the imposition of personal penalties under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act is justified without establishing mens rea, as the penalties are intended to be deterrent and corrective for violations that undermine economic stability. The Tribunal's decision was upheld, and the question was answered in the affirmative, confirming that no mens rea is required for levying personal penalty u/s 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
