Page 310 - ELT_15th June 2020_VOL 372_Part 6th

956 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372
Penalty (Contd.)
Sections 112 and 114A of Customs Act, 1962 — Santosh Kumar Poddar v.
Commissioner of Customs (Prev.), Kolkata (Tri. - Kolkata) ................... 606
— Imposition of - With reference to value adopted for redemption of
confiscated goods - It is unsustainable for penalty under Section 114AA
of Customs Act, 1962 — S. Muthusamy v. Addl. Director General (Adj.), D.R.I.,
Mumbai (Tri. - Mumbai) ................................. 849
— Imposition on CEO of company on establishing under invoicing on
import - See under ADJUDICATION ....................... 610
— not imposable in respect of clearance of past consignments on basis of
current test report - See under CONFISCATION ................. 388
— Nubuck Leather declared for export not found to be Nubuck Leather on
testing, confiscation, Redemption Fine and penalty sustainable - See
under CONFISCATION .............................. 382
— on Custom House Agent - Mens rea - Penalties imposed under Section
112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 in respect of goods which have been held to
be liable to confiscation under Section 111 of Customs Act, 1962 - Though
under Section 112(a) ibid mens rea may not be required to be proved as
condition precedent, however, when it comes to imposition of penalty, it
is necessary to show that said essential element/ingredient is present -
No element of mens rea or conscious knowledge which can be attributed
to CHA - Investigation carried out by CBI and other facts show that CHA
acted bona fide and merely facilitated imports on the strength of
documents which were handed over to him by importer - No ground to
interfere with findings of Tribunal - Sections 130 and 114AA of Customs
Act, 1962 — Commissioner of Customs (Import) v. Trinetra Impex Pvt. Ltd. (Del.) ...... 332
— on customs Broker - Facilitation/Abatement of concealment of
goods/non-declaration of restricted items imported by importer,
Allegation of - Antecedents or whereabouts of importer verified by
looking into DGFT website and no attempts made to meet importer in
person - HELD : When Ministry of Commerce granting IE licence
exhibited details of IEC holders in Website, appellant cannot be found
fault for accepting same to be true and correct - Also, apart from
statement of employees that previous consignment of same importer also
comprised of non-declared goods, no evidence on record to doubt
previous consignments - Also, statements retracted and not subjected to
cross-examination - Apart from allegation that appellant ought to have
been cautions, no evidence on record to show that appellant had any
knowledge of import of undeclared goods - When importer consciously
conceals certain facts from Customs Broker, it cannot be presumed that
Customs Broker abetted in such offence merely because he has not met
importer face-to-face - Nothing to hold that appellant intentionally
connived or abetted in non-declaration / concealment of the goods -
Impugned order is set aside - Sections 112(a) and 114AA of Customs Act,
1962 — WCI Shipping Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai (Tri. - Chennai) ..... 369
— on partner - Penalty when imposed on the firm, separate penalty on
partner cannot be imposed under Section 114A of Customs Act, 1962 —
Mulchand M. Zaveri v. Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad (Tri. - Ahmd.) .......... 417
— on smuggling of silver of foreign marking imposable - See under
SMUGGLING .................................... 724
— Quantification of - ‘Nil’ value - Determined based on utility of goods to
importer which is conceptually repugnant valuation of goods - In such
case, penalties are unsustainable - Sections 14 and 112 of Customs Act,
1962 — S. Muthusamy v. Addl. Director General (Adj.), D.R.I., Mumbai (Tri. - Mumbai) .... 849
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th June 2020  310