Satheesan B Menon Vs Principal Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai)
These appeals arose from Order-in-Original No. 266/2016-AIR dated 30.03.2016 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs, Chennai-VII, pursuant to a Show Cause Notice dated 18.10.2013. The notice alleged that raw materials imported for pharmaceutical manufacturing were brought in without an import license or Assistant Drug Controller (ADC) clearance, in violation of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. While the allegations covered 31 past consignments, confiscation was proposed only for two live consignments dated 02.04.2013 and 03.04.2013 under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, along with penalties under Section 112(a) on co-noticees. The adjudicating authority confirmed these proposals. Among all noticees, only the present appellants filed appeals.
The Tribunal identified the sole issue as whether the imposition of penalty under Section 112(a) on the appellants was justified. The appellants contended that the allegations primarily related to violation of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations (CHALR), 2004, and no specific role or conduct attributable to them was established to attract penalty under Section 112. It was argued that even if CHALR violations existed, they would not automatically justify penalty under the Customs Act without evidence of involvement as required under the provision.
