1987 (4) TMI 231 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal affirms penalty under Customs Act, reduces amount. Importer's involvement proven despite disclaimers. Appeal dismissed.

The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed by the Collector under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962, but reduced it from Rs. 1 lakh to Rs. 60,000. Despite ... Goods disclaimed by importer but circumstances conclusively establishing charge of illegal import Issues:Penalty imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 for failure to clear imported goods.Detailed Analysis:1. Imposition of Penalty:The appeal was against the penalty imposed by the Collector of Customs under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant received a container of electronic components but failed to file a Bill of Entry for clearance. Despite multiple notices and extensions, the appellant did not take action, leading to the authorities opening the container and discovering the contents. The goods were found to be of substantial value and packed with markings referring to the appellant.2. Appellant's Defense:The appellant argued that they were not involved in the illegal importation and had disclaimed the goods, stating they were wrongly consigned by the suppliers. The appellant claimed that the charges of mis-declaration and under-invoicing were incorrect as they did not file any Bill of Entry. The appellant sought exoneration based on the supplier's actions and lack of show cause notice to the supplier.3. Department's Position:The Departmental Representative contended that the appellant imported prohibited electronic items of significant value and that the appellant's plea of the goods being missent was not credible. The Department highlighted the appellant's delayed disclaimer of the goods and the markings on the packages linking them to the appellant.4. Tribunal's Decision:The Tribunal considered the circumstances and evidence presented. They noted the suspicious nature of the import coinciding with another party's order for similar items. The Tribunal found the appellant's conduct regarding the delayed clearance and lack of communication with the supplier questionable. The appellant's failure to produce relevant correspondence with the supplier and the goods being packed with the appellant's markings were crucial factors.5. Conclusion:The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed by the Collector but reduced it from Rs. 1 lakh to Rs. 60,000. They found the charge against the appellant established based on the evidence and circumstances. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the appellant's involvement in the importation despite attempts to disclaim the goods. The Tribunal clarified that the reference to Eiko Computers did not prejudice the appellant and rejected claims of show cause notice deficiency.This detailed analysis covers the issues, arguments presented, the decision of the Tribunal, and the reasoning behind the judgment.