Case Law Details
Commissioner of Customs Vs Jayachandran (CESTAT Chennai)
The case revolved around a botched smuggling attempt of red sanders under the disguise of ‘General Merchant’. The respondent, S. Jayachandran, General Manager of M/s. Triway Forwarders Pvt. Ltd, was exonerated from charges as the adjudicating authority found no act of omission or commission on his part that made the goods liable for confiscation. This resulted in the Revenue filing an appeal against the decision. However, the CESTAT supported the initial adjudication and declared that non-compliance with CBLR does not warrant penalties under the Customs Act, 1962. This decision was based on the lack of concrete evidence of wrongdoing and upheld the principle that penalties should not be levied merely because a legal provision provides for it. They should be considered on the basis of concrete facts and the extent of the wrongdoing.
The CESTAT Chennai’s ruling has shed light on an important aspect of customs law. It underlined the need for substantial proof of wrongdoing when levying penalties under the Customs Act, 1962. The lack of compliance with the CBLR regulations does not, in itself, attract penalties under sections 114 and 114AA of the act. This decision is significant as it provides valuable insight into the nuances of customs law and can serve as a precedent for similar cases in the future.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT CHENNAI ORDER
This appeal is filed by Revenue against Order-in-Appeal Seaport C. Cus. II No. 1030/2020 dated 27.11.2020 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals – II), Chennai) who has upheld the adjudication order wherein the adjudicating authority has exonerated the respondent from the charges levelled against him and from imposing penalty under sec. 114 and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
