CESTAT sets aside penalties under Section 112(a) for license forgery by third parties after 14-year delay

CESTAT Mumbai allowed appeal in part regarding confiscation of imported Nylon Tafeta goods and penalty imposition. While upholding confiscation under Section 111(d) and (o) of Customs Act due to forged Special Import Licenses, the tribunal set aside penalties under Section 112(a) imposed on importer and CB/CHA appellants. Court found no evidence that appellants were directly involved in license forgery, which was committed by unscrupulous third parties. Additionally, penalty proceedings initiated after 14 years were deemed unreasonable and beyond statutory time limits, citing various HC precedents requiring penalties to be imposed within reasonable timeframes.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Confiscation of imported goods u/s 111(d) and 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Imposition of penalty u/s 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Timeliness of the show cause notice and penalty imposition.

Summary:

1. Confiscation of Imported Goods:
The importer, M/s San International, imported five consignments of 'Nylon Tafeta' through Mumbai Sea Port using Special Import Licenses procured from the open market. The Department of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) investigation revealed these licenses were forged. Consequently, the Commissioner of Customs confiscated the goods u/s 111(d) and 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962, and allowed redemption upon payment of Rs. 10,00,000. The Tribunal upheld the confiscation as the licenses were proven to be forged.

2. Imposition of Penalty:
The Commissioner imposed penalties of Rs. 5,00,000 on the importer and Rs. 3,00,000 on the Customs Broker (CB) u/s 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, citing non-compliance with investigation summons and lack of proof of payment for the licenses. The Tribunal found no evidence linking the appellants directly to the forgery or any act leading to the forgery. The Tribunal held that penalties u/s 112(a) require clear evidence of involvement in or omission leading to the forgery, which was not established in this case. Thus, the penalties were set aside.

3. Timeliness of Show Cause Notice and Penalty Imposition:
The show cause notice was issued nearly nine and a half years after the import, exceeding the maximum period of 5 years prescribed for duty demands under the Customs Act. The Tribunal referenced judgments from the High Courts of Punjab & Haryana and Bombay, which emphasized that penalty proceedings must be initiated within a reasonable time. The Tribunal concluded that the delay was unjustified and supported the appellants' contention against the imposition of penalties after such a long period.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal partially allowed the appeals by setting aside the penalties imposed on the appellants while upholding the confiscation of goods and the redemption fine. The decision was pronounced in open court on 03.06.2024.

---