1991 (8) TMI 189 - AT - Customs

Appeals allowed, penalties set aside for lack of evidence.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals of M/s. Jeena & Co., Shri Janardhan Thakur, and Shri K.K. Bhattacharya, setting aside the penalties imposed on them. ... Penalty Issues Involved:1. Knowledge and involvement of M/s. Jeena & Co. in the attempted export of Hashish.2. Allegations against Shri Janardhan Thakur regarding aiding and abetting the export of Hashish.3. Allegations against Shri K.K. Bhattacharya regarding aiding and abetting the export of Hashish.4. Relevance of the Collector's order exonerating M/s. Jeena & Co. under the Custom House Agents Licensing Regulations.5. Validity of the penalties imposed under Section 114(1) of the Customs Act, 1962.Detailed Analysis:1. Knowledge and involvement of M/s. Jeena & Co. in the attempted export of Hashish:M/s. Jeena & Co., a reputed firm of Customs House Clearing Agents, argued that they acted in good faith without knowledge of the contraband nature of the goods. The impugned order did not find that their officers had any knowledge of the contents of the consignment. The firm argued that without allegations of knowledge against their officers, the firm itself could not be held liable. The Tribunal agreed, noting that the firm had acted in good faith and had no reason to suspect the exporter's intentions. The appeal by M/s. Jeena & Co. was allowed, and the penalty imposed on them was set aside.2. Allegations against Shri Janardhan Thakur regarding aiding and abetting the export of Hashish:Shri Janardhan Thakur contended that the first show cause notice did not include him and that the supplementary notice did not allege his knowledge of the Hashish. The adjudicating authority's assumption that he 'would have known' about the steps taken in the office was based on conjecture. The Tribunal found this supposition insufficient to establish guilt. Given the lack of evidence of his knowledge or involvement, the appeal by Shri Janardhan Thakur was allowed, and the penalty was set aside.3. Allegations against Shri K.K. Bhattacharya regarding aiding and abetting the export of Hashish:Shri K.K. Bhattacharya was alleged to have actively assisted in the export attempt, including handling a fake rubber stamp and preparing false documents. He argued that he acted in good faith, unaware of the contraband nature of the goods. The Tribunal noted that there was no evidence proving his knowledge of the fake nature of the documents or the non-existent company. The Tribunal granted him the benefit of doubt, setting aside the order against him and allowing his appeal.4. Relevance of the Collector's order exonerating M/s. Jeena & Co. under the Custom House Agents Licensing Regulations:The Tribunal acknowledged the Collector's order exonerating M/s. Jeena & Co. under the Custom House Agents Licensing Regulations, noting that while it was not binding, it was relevant as it was based on the same set of facts. The Collector had found that the allegations were not factually proved and were not within the ambit of the Regulations or the Customs Act. This finding supported the Tribunal's decision to allow the appeals of M/s. Jeena & Co. and their employees.5. Validity of the penalties imposed under Section 114(1) of the Customs Act, 1962:The penalties imposed by the Additional Collector were based on the assumption of knowledge and involvement in the attempted export of Hashish. The Tribunal found that the evidence did not support these assumptions. The lack of concrete proof of knowledge or intent to abet the crime led to the conclusion that the penalties were unjustified. Consequently, the penalties under Section 114(1) of the Customs Act were set aside for all appellants.Conclusion:The Tribunal allowed the appeals of M/s. Jeena & Co., Shri Janardhan Thakur, and Shri K.K. Bhattacharya, setting aside the penalties imposed on them. The decision was based on the lack of evidence proving their knowledge or involvement in the attempted export of Hashish, granting them the benefit of doubt.