Case Law Details
Ajay Sarawagi Vs Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Shillong (CESTAT Kolkata)
CESTAT find that Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 is not applicable to the facts of the present case because records show that the Appellant had never acquired possession or in any way was connected with the activities mentioned in the Section or in any manner dealing with any goods which the Appellant knew or had reason to believe are liable to confiscation. It is now well established that mens rea is an important ingredient for imposing penalty on the persons enumerated in Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The evidence brought out by the department nowhere suggests that the Appellant was aware that the goods in question were smuggled into the country. The penalty imposed on the Appellant, therefore, cannot be sustained.
Past offence can be at best enhancer of civil and/or criminal liabilities, but no penalty can be imposed on any concurrent alleged offence. It is well settled law that no penalty under section 112(b)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962, can be imposed without proving the nexus with the goods under seizure which are liable for confiscation.
In view of the above discussions, CESTAT held that the Appellant is not liable for imposition of penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 & set aside the penalty of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs only) imposed under Section 112(b) (ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 and allow the Appeal with consequential relief, as per law.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT KOLKATA ORDER
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
