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>Exporters cleared of red sanders smuggling penalties under Sections 114(i) and 114AA due to insufficient evidence of involvement</h1> <h3>SANYO CERMICS, KANTIBHAI RAMJIBHAI JETPARIYA, MEGHJIBHAI RAMJIBHAI JETPARIYA Versus C.C. -MUNDRA And C. C-MUNDRA Versus SHRI KANTILAL RAMJIBHAI JETPARIYA, MEGHJIBHAI RAMJIBHAI JETPARIYA, SANYO CERMICS</h3> SANYO CERMICS, KANTIBHAI RAMJIBHAI JETPARIYA, MEGHJIBHAI RAMJIBHAI JETPARIYA Versus C.C. -MUNDRA And C. C-MUNDRA Versus SHRI KANTILAL RAMJIBHAI JETPARIYA, ... Issues Involved:1. Imposition of penalties under Sections 114(i), 114AA, and 117 of the Customs Act, 1962.2. Adequacy of penalties imposed by the Adjudicating Authority and sustained by the Commissioner (Appeals).3. Direct involvement and knowledge of the appellants in the export of prohibited goods.Summary:Issue 1: Imposition of Penalties under Sections 114(i), 114AA, and 117 of the Customs Act, 1962The Adjudicating Authority imposed penalties on M/s. Sanyo Ceramics and its partners under Sections 114(i) and 114AA, citing that 'none of the partners of the exporter took care at any stage to monitor the cargo being transported in their name' and that 'mens rea stands established.' The Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the penalties but still upheld them, noting that the appellants could not be completely absolved from the penalty provisions despite the lack of direct involvement.Issue 2: Adequacy of Penalties Imposed by the Adjudicating Authority and Sustained by the Commissioner (Appeals)The department appealed for setting aside the order for inadequate penalties, while the appellants argued that penalties were imposed based on vague findings such as 'knowingly or unknowingly' and 'involvement in the scam cannot be ruled out.' The Tribunal found that the penalties under Sections 114(i) and 114AA were not justified due to the lack of direct involvement or knowledge of the appellants in the substitution of goods.Issue 3: Direct Involvement and Knowledge of the Appellants in the Export of Prohibited GoodsThe Tribunal noted that the sealed containers stuffed with declared goods had left the factory and were tampered with enroute by third parties. There were no incriminating statements against M/s. Sanyo Ceramics or its partners. The Tribunal concluded that the appellants were victims of fraud and lacked the knowledge required to justify penalties under Sections 114(i) and 114AA. The Tribunal also found that the penalty under Section 117 could not be imposed due to the absence of a specific provision violation.Conclusion:The Tribunal allowed the appeals of the appellant parties, setting aside the penalties imposed under Sections 114(i) and 114AA, and dismissed the department's appeals for imposing penalties under Section 117. The Tribunal emphasized that exporters should not be penalized without clear evidence of their involvement or knowledge of the offending goods.Pronouncement:The judgment was pronounced in the open Court on 09.02.2024.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
