New Era Trading Pvt. Ltd Vs Principal Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi)
CESTAT Delhi held that penalty under section 114AB of the Customs Act couldn’t be imposed merely on the basis of statement made under section 108 since it cannot be considered as evidence u/s. 138B of the Customs Act. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
Facts- New Era Trading Pvt. Ltd. has filed this appeal to assail the order dated 27.04.2023 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs, confiscating the goods exported u/s. 113(d), (g) and (i) of the Customs Act, 1962 but as the goods had been exported and were not available for confiscation nor cleared under a bond, redemption fine in lieu of confiscation has not been imposed. The Principal Commissioner also ordered for recovery of the ineligible Focus Market Scrips from the appellant u/s. 28AAA of the Customs Act with applicable rate of interest. The amount of drawback under rule 16 of the Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995 has been dropped, but penalties have been imposed upon the Proprietor of the appellant u/s. 114(iii), 114AA and section 114AB of the Customs Act.
Conclusion- The Principal Commissioner has confiscated the goods under section 113 of the Customs Act for the reason that the appellant and Imran Mirza colluded. This finding is again based on the statement made by Imran Mirza under section 108 of the Customs Act, which statement cannot be relied upon for the reasons stated above. Confiscation of goods would, therefore, have to be set aside and consequently, penalty under section 114(iii) of the Customs Act could not have been levied upon the appellant.
