Penalty u/s 112(a) cannot be invoked in the absence of corroborative Evidence: CESTAT [Read Order]

The Chennai Principal Bench of Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) comprised of Ms Sulekha Beevi C S, JM has held that penalty u/s 112(a) of the Customs Act cannot be invoked in the absence of corroborative Evidence

The appellant M/s. Amar Exports filed a Bill of Entry dated 22.12.2017 through their Customs Broker M/s. Sun Sea Shipping Agency for the clearance of import consignment in which the misdeclaration of 341 cartons of shoes bearing brand names Nike, Adidas, Reebok and Puma were found. The counterfeit goods infringe the trademark and are prohibited goods as per Section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 29, Section 30(3) and Section 102 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. It was observed that the IPR infringing items were imported under the consignment of 3B Glass top gas stoves which were liable for confiscation along with the shoes. It was alleged that Sun Sea Shipping Agency has assisted the misdeclaration of goods by not verifying the Bill of Entry.

The revenue confiscated the 12436 pairs of shoes which infringe the IPR, u/s 111(d) and 111(l) of Customs Act,1962 and imposed a penalty under section 112(a) of the Act. The Commissioner (Appeal) upheld the confiscated order.

The appellant alleged that a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- imposed under CBLR, 2013 and no offence sustained section 112(a) of the Customs Act 1962 for the same allegation. Further, contended that no ingredients attracting Section 112(a) were adduced in the show cause notice while the respondent supported the findings of the Commissioner in the impugned order.

 The Tribunal observed that there is no evidence against the appellant in proving sharing benefits of fraudulent exports and the Department has failed to establish the ingredients under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act,1962. Further held that the penalty imposed was on the higher side and reduced the penalty to 1,00,000/- The Customs Appeal No.40356/2021, 40855/2021 was allowed for consequential relief and partly allowed by reduction of penalty respectively.

Dr S. Krishnanandh and Smt.  L. Maithili appeared on behalf of the Appellants while Shri R. Rajaraman appeared on behalf of the Respondent.

To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE

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