1999 (11) TMI 317 - AT - Customs

Appellate tribunal overturns penalty on freight forwarding agent in gold bars case

VAZ FORWARDING LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CALCUTTA

VAZ FORWARDING LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CALCUTTA - 2000 (118) E.L.T. 724 (Tribunal) Issues:Imposition of personal penalty on the appellant by Customs authorities despite not being connected to the contraband consignment seized.Analysis:The appellant, a multi-model transport operator and freight forwarding agent, was penalized by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, West Bengal, and the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) with a personal penalty of Rs. 1.50 lakhs. The authorities did not challenge the confiscation of gold bars and other goods valued at Rs. 5,69,400/-, but contested the penalty. The consignment seized by Customs officers contained 10 bars of foreign origin gold concealed inside a rechargeable emergency lamp. The appellant's role was limited to forwarding consignments without handling the contents directly. They would collect airway bills, inform consignees, and facilitate delivery after Customs clearance. The appellant argued they had no knowledge or connection to the contraband found in the consignment. The authorities did not establish any link between the appellant and the seized goods.The appellant's consultant emphasized that as forwarding agents, they merely facilitated the paperwork for consignments and did not handle the contents. They contended that the penalty was unjustified as they were not involved in the contraband consignment. The appellant's process involved notifying consignees upon receipt of airway bills, but in this case, no one claimed the delivery orders, and the consignee's address was fictitious. The appellant's lack of involvement in the contents of the packages was highlighted, and it was argued that the penalty was unwarranted due to the absence of evidence linking them to the contraband.In response, the JDR representing the Customs authorities reiterated that it was common for such illicit goods to be sent through forwarding agents, and when intercepted, no one comes forward to claim the delivery. The authorities believed the appellant's involvement was evident as they handled the clearance of the seized consignment. The JDR sought the dismissal of the appeal based on this involvement. However, the appellate tribunal found that the appellant, being a freight forwarding agent, had no reason to know the contents of the consignment. Despite sending advice to the consignee, who did not show up, and finding a fictitious address, the tribunal concluded that the appellant was not connected to the contraband. As there was no additional evidence supporting the authorities' claim of the appellant's involvement, the tribunal set aside the personal penalty imposed on the appellant, allowing the appeal with consequential relief.