https://www.taxtmi.com/css/info/rss_sitemap/rss_feed.css?v=1746094055 https://www.taxtmi.com Business/Tax/Law/GST/India/Taxation/Policies/Legal/Corporate Tax/Personal Tax/Vat Law/Legal Information/Tax Information/Legal Services/Tax Services Tax Management India. Com / MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd. All rights reserved. One stop solution for Direct Taxes and Indirect Taxes https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770148 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770148 Absolute confiscation - levy of penalty and quantum thereof - black pepper of foreign origin - violation of Section 46 of the Customs Act, 1962 through routes that were not notified under Section 7(c) of the Customs Act - HELD THAT:- The alleged intermediary Ashish planted by the appellant could never be traced, nor his whereabouts ascertained. Even the appellant who had allegedly placed order for supply of 20-22 MTs black pepper on said Ashish could not intimate his whereabouts including phone number. It is thus likely that there may be no existing person of the said description and it is only stated as a façade to protect the appellant. Even the investigating agencies could not lay its hand on said Ashish, nor Pravin Kasera for whom said Ashish was meant to supply the goods led the authorities to any of his details. The fact of having placed order for procurement of 20-22 tons by a "fictitious" person is clever ploy by the appellant to extricate himself of consequential liabilities. The appellant could not produce even a single piece of evidence to support his contention that they had placed order on the said person named Ashish, who in turn had allegedly informed the appellant, about the seizure. With no formal orders or no payments having been made and with no details about Ashish, the version of the appellant is difficult to be believed. That being so, if Ashish was a real person upon whom the appellant had placed order for supply of said black pepper it belies logic as to why the appellant was/is not familiar with the whereabouts of the person who promised to deliver such large quantity of the said goods. From the facts of the case, it is evidently established that the appellant was well aware as to where the black pepper is being procured from and how it was required to be transported to prevent detention. It is not tenable that the import of such huge quantity of black pepper worth crores of rupees would be made by an unknown seller without receiving any payment from the purchaser. No prudent businessmen would deal and carry out such activities to/from unknown buyers and risk huge quantity of goods. Conclusion - There are no reason justifying non-imposition of penalty on the appellant. Mens rea on part of the appellant and his intent for smuggling of large quantities of black pepper evading duty payment is established. The onus to support his version about Ashish by furnishing his details was on the appellant, which has not been discharged. There is no payment proof of licit acquisition of the said goods. The confiscation of goods calls for no interference. There being no real owner/claimant of seized goods, the absolute confiscation of smuggled black pepper is in order. The appellant by his contumacious conduct has indeed rendered himself liable for imposition of penalty. A penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- on the appellant would meet the ends of justice. The Order of the lower authority, is thus upheld and modified only to the aforesaid extent, qua the appellant - Appeal allowed in part. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 06 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530