P.G. Chacko, Member (J) - (1.)This appeal is against a penalty of Rs. 15,000 imposed on the appellants by the Commissioner of Customs under Section 112 (b) of the Customs Act.
(2.)Examined the records and heard both sides. The above penalty was imposed in proceedings relating to clearance of certain goods imported by M/s. Stiles India Limited, Chennai. The imported goods were cleared on behalf of the said Company by their Custom Mouse Agent, D. Ramesh working in the name and style of "Farport International". In the relevant show -cause notice issued to the importer, CHA and others, it was mainly alleged that the duty payment endorsements made on the relevant Bills of Entry (for home consumption) prior to clearance of the goods were forged. The duty on the goods as assessed in the Bills of Entry had not actually been paid and therefore, it was alleged, the goods were liable to be confiscated under Section 111 (j) of the Customs Act. In this connection, it was also alleged that penalties were liable to be imposed on the importer and the CHA. A penalty under Section 112 (a) of the Act was also proposed against the appellant, brother of the CHA. It was alleged that he had associated himself with the modus operandi of clearance of the goods and had helped his brother D. Ramesh (CHA) to misappropriate the duty amounts. The allegation was denied. In adjudication of the dispute, Ld. Commissioner of Customs imposed the aforesaid penalty on the appellant under Section 112 (b) of the Act, apart from holding the goods liable for confiscation and imposing penalties on the importer and the CHA.
(3.)In the present appeal, it is contended that no such penalty was liable to be imposed on the appellant under. Section 112 (b) of the Act as the allegation against him had not been proved. There was no shred of evidence to show that he had previous knowledge of the alleged activities of his brother (CHA) involving misuse of funds. Ld. Counsel for the appellant reiterates these contentions and also submits that the appellant was not liable to be penalised as he had not dealt with any goods liable for confiscation. The subject goods were not liable to be confiscated under Section 111 (j) of the Act as alleged in the show -cause notice. Counsel has endeavoured to elaborate the point by submitting that the goods which were cleared as permitted by the proper officer of Customs did not, in any manner, attract Clause (j) of Section 111 of the Customs Act. The show -cause notice did not allege that permission was not granted for clearance of the goods, nor did the adjudicating authority find to this effect. Therefore, according to the Counsel, Clause (j) of Section 111 does not get attracted in this case and consequently Section 112 (b) is also not applicable.