Confiscation of Goods and Penalty imposed under Customs Act solely based on Statement adduced is not valid: CESTAT [Read Order]

The Chennai bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) set aside the Consification of goods and penalty imposed under Customs Act as it was solely based on a statement adduced.

Shri N. Viswanathan, Advocate appeared for the Appellant and Shri S. Balakumar, Authorized Representative for the Respondent

M/s. Universal Exim, had imported goods declared as “Stationery Goods” vide Bill-of-Lading dated 02.01.2018; the said consignment was imported in a container bearing number TCNU8248262 at M/s. A.S. Shipping Agencies Private Limited.Based on specific intelligence, the consignment was taken up for examination wherein it was observed that apart from stationery goods, the consignment also contained cosmetic items of various brands.

The revenue held the goods liable for confiscation under Sections 111(l) and 111(m)of the act.The Officers of the SIIB, during the investigation, summoned various persons and recorded statements under Section 108 of the act. Penalties were proposed on various persons including penalties under Section 112(b) and Section 114AA of the act on the appellant, Mr Hari Prabhu. The appellant preferred an appeal against the above imposition of penalty under Section 112(b) of the act which was rejected vide impugned Order.

A Single member bench of Mr P Dinesha, member (judicial) has observed that there was no evidence other than the statement of one Shri R. Suresh to suggest the involvement of this appellant in the illegal removal of the subject container, clearly indicates that the appellant has been targeted for no reason.

There is no material brought on record as to the role of this appellant, i.e., act or omission, that has led to the confiscation of the prohibited goods and the Revenue had relied on the statement of Shri R. Suresh, Partner of M/s. Saptagiri Logistics, at whose godown it was alleged that Container No. TCNU 8248262 reached on 20.08.2018.

The Tribunal observed that there is nothing on record other than Shri Chandrasekhar informing Shri R. Suresh that the above job was given to him by the appellant and in his voluntary statement, said Chandrasekhar has denied having known this appellant. The bench held that the penalty levied on the appellant is arbitrary and set aside the impugned order.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates