Department's appeal dismissed as penalty under Section 114AA requires proof of knowing false declaration in cigarette smuggling case

CESTAT Chennai dismissed the department's appeal challenging non-imposition of penalty under Section 114AA on respondents involved in cigarette smuggling case. Undeclared cigarettes were found concealed behind gypsum plaster powder bags with mis-declared quantities. The main importer from Malaysia was untraceable and proceedings were dropped against him. The tribunal held that department failed to establish respondents made false or incorrect documents, and without proving knowing or intentional false declaration, penalty under Section 114AA cannot be imposed, citing precedent from Artisan Welfare Society case.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the adjudicating authority erred in not imposing penalties u/s 114 AA of the Customs Act 1962 on the Respondents.
2. Examination of the role of various individuals and entities involved in the alleged smuggling attempt.

Summary:

1. Facts and Allegations:
M/s. K.B.S. Manian and Brothers Pvt. Ltd., Chennai filed a bill of entry dated 17.09.2012 on behalf of M/s. Ganga Enterprises, New Delhi for importing 25 metric tons of "Gypsum Plaster in Powder Form." Upon examination by DRI officers, it was found that the container also contained undeclared cigarettes valued at Rs.1,22,85,440/-, concealed behind the gypsum plaster bags. Show Cause Notices were issued, and the original authority ordered confiscation of the smuggled cigarettes, imposed a redemption fine, and penalties under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act. However, no penalties were imposed u/s 114 AA on the Respondents.

2. Department's Appeal:
The department, represented by Shri R. Rajaraman, argued that the adjudicating authority failed to impose penalties u/s 114 AA despite evidence showing the Respondents' involvement in smuggling. The department contended that the Respondents acted in concurrence to smuggle cigarettes into the country.

3. Respondents' Defense:
The Respondents did not appear despite repeated notices. Ms. Vishnu Priya, appointed as Amicus Curie, argued that there were no grounds to impose penalties u/s 114 AA. The adjudicating authority had found no material evidence that the Respondents made any false or incorrect declarations.

4. Adjudicating Authority's Findings:
The adjudicating authority refrained from imposing penalties u/s 114 AA, citing a lack of evidence that the Respondents knowingly or intentionally made false declarations. The authority discussed the roles of various individuals and concluded that there was no indictment in the Show Cause Notice that warranted penalties u/s 114 AA.

5. Tribunal's Decision:
The Tribunal upheld the adjudicating authority's decision, stating that the department failed to establish that the Respondents made any false or incorrect documents. The Tribunal referenced similar cases, including M/s. Artisan Welfare Society and M/s. Cochin Air Cargo Clearing House, where penalties u/s 114 AA were not imposed due to insufficient evidence. The Tribunal dismissed the department's appeal, finding it devoid of merits.

6. Appreciation:
The Bench appreciated the efforts of Ms. Vishnu Priya in assisting the Tribunal.

Conclusion:
The appeals filed by the department were dismissed, and the order passed by the adjudicating authority in not imposing penalties u/s 114 AA was upheld.

---