Vinod Kumar Agarwal Vs Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) (CESTAT Kolkata)
Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata, has overturned a penalty of Rs. 20,000 and a redemption fine of Rs. 80,000 previously imposed on Vinod Kumar Agarwal, the registered owner of a truck involved in the transportation of goods alleged to be smuggled. The tribunal’s order, pertaining to the case of Vinod Kumar Agarwal Vs Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), concluded that the Customs Department failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish the appellant’s knowledge or active involvement in the illicit activity.
The case emerged following an operation by officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), who intercepted a truck bearing Registration No. NL-01AA-5448. The vehicle was found to be transporting a substantial consignment comprising 3,975 kgs of Vietnamese Black Pepper and 17,021 kgs of Arhar. The combined market value of these goods was assessed at Rs. 43,27,172. Authorities alleged that these commodities had been smuggled into India from Nepal, in contravention of the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962.
Subsequent to the interception, a Show Cause Notice dated September 26, 2018, was issued. This notice proposed the confiscation of the seized goods and also sought to impose penalties on individuals deemed involved, including Mr. Agarwal, by virtue of his ownership of the vehicle utilized for the transport. The initial order, which the appellant contested before CESTAT, had upheld both the personal penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act and the redemption fine in lieu of vehicle confiscation under Section 125 of the same Act. Section 112 typically addresses penalties for persons who deal with smuggled goods or abet smuggling, while Section 125 allows for a fine to be paid instead of actual confiscation of goods or conveyances involved in smuggling.
