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>Appeal dismissed for forged WPC licenses penalty under Section 112 Customs Act deemed proportionate</h1> <h3>Hughes Network Systems India Ltd. Versus Commissioner Of Customs (Import & General) New Delhi</h3> Hughes Network Systems India Ltd. Versus Commissioner Of Customs (Import & General) New Delhi - 2024 (388) E.L.T. 594 (Del.) Issues Involved:1. Liability of appellants under Section 112 of the Customs Act.2. Confiscation of goods under Section 111 of the Customs Act.3. Quantum of redemption fine and penalty imposed.Summary:1. Liability under Section 112 of the Customs Act:The appellants contended that they had no mens rea and were unaware that the WPC licenses were forged. However, the court clarified that Section 112(a) of the Customs Act operates on a strict liability principle, meaning no mens rea is required. The appellants' actions rendered the goods liable for confiscation, thus justifying the penalty imposed. Section 112(b), which requires mens rea, was not applicable in this case.2. Confiscation of Goods under Section 111 of the Customs Act:The court emphasized that the importation was carried out using forged WPC licenses, contravening Section 111(d) of the Customs Act. This section mandates confiscation of goods imported contrary to any prohibition imposed by the Act. The court concluded that the goods were rightly confiscated as the appellants failed to produce valid WPC licenses.3. Quantum of Redemption Fine and Penalty:The appellants argued that the redemption fine and penalty were harsh and excessive. The court noted that the Commissioner of Customs had exercised discretion judicially, imposing a redemption fine of 19% and a penalty of 9.5% of the goods' value, which was within legal limits. The court referenced the Supreme Court's judgment in Akbar Badrudin Giwani, affirming that the penalty and fine were not excessive given the circumstances. The court also cited Jain Exports Pvt Ltd, reiterating that once contravention is established, the penalty must follow, and only the quantum is discretionary.Conclusion:The court upheld the Tribunal's judgment, dismissing the appeals and confirming the confiscation of goods and penalties imposed. The discretion exercised by the Commissioner of Customs was deemed judicial and appropriate, with no grounds for interference.
TaxTMI 