2025 (3) TMI 746 - AT - Customs

Penalties under sections 112 and 114AA upheld for forged WPC licenses on imported goods

Amit Mahajan Versus Commissioner of Customs (Import & General) New Delhi

The CESTAT New Delhi dismissed an appeal challenging penalties imposed under sections 112 and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. The case involved imported ... Levy of penalty u/s 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 and a penalty u/s 114AA of the Customs Act - whether the goods that were imported required Wireless Planning and Coordination (WPC) License and whether in the absence of this license, the goods could be confiscated? - existence of proper evidence or not - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- It is not possible to accept the contention that has been raised in the grounds of appeal that the finding recorded by the Commissioner is without any evidence. The Commissioner has meticulously examined the evidence and has recorded a categorical finding of fact that either WPC Licenses were not produced and the WPC Licenses that were produced were forged. This finding has not been effectively contraverted. Fraud vitiates everything, and therefore, no benefit can accrue to the appellant. Appeal dismissed. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe primary legal questions considered in this judgment are: Whether the imported goods required a Wireless Planning and Coordination (WPC) License. Whether the absence of a valid WPC License justified the confiscation of the imported goods. Whether the penalties imposed under sections 112 and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962, were justified based on the evidence of forgery and conspiracy to forge WPC Licenses.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS1. Requirement of WPC License for Imported GoodsThe relevant legal framework includes Notification No. 71-Customs dated 25.09.1953, as amended, which mandates that the import of wireless telegraphy apparatus requires a WPC import license. Additionally, the Ministry of Commerce Notification No. 37 (RE 2005) / 2004-2009 dated 09.01.2006 supports this requirement.The Court interpreted these notifications to unequivocally require a WPC License for the import of the specified goods. The evidence presented included findings from investigations by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), which revealed that the WPC Licenses produced were forged. This evidence was crucial in establishing the requirement and the absence of a valid license.Applying the law to the facts, the Court concluded that the goods were imported without valid WPC Licenses, rendering the import illegal under Section 11A (a) of the Customs Act, 1962, and subject to confiscation under Section 111 (d) of the Customs Act, 1962.2. Justification for Confiscation and PenaltiesThe Court considered the imposition of penalties under sections 112 and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. The evidence included statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act from individuals involved in the conspiracy to forge WPC Licenses. The investigation revealed that the appellant and others conspired to forge these licenses for monetary gain and competitive advantage.The Court found that the appellant and associated individuals were directly involved in the forgery and that the forged licenses were used to facilitate the illegal importation of goods. The examination of electronic devices and recovery of rubber stamps used in the forgery further substantiated the findings.The Court treated competing arguments by examining the grounds of appeal, which claimed that the Commissioner's findings were unsupported by evidence. However, the Court found these arguments unconvincing, as the Commissioner's findings were based on substantial evidence of forgery and conspiracy.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSThe Court upheld the Commissioner's order, emphasizing that 'Fraud vitiates everything,' and no benefit can accrue to the appellant from the forged licenses. The core principles established include the necessity of a valid WPC License for the import of specified goods and the severe consequences of forgery and conspiracy in customs matters.The final determination dismissed the appeal, affirming the penalties imposed under sections 112 and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962, due to the appellant's involvement in the forgery and illegal importation activities.