2026-VIL-1876-CESTAT-AHM-CU

CUSTOMS CESTAT Cases

Customs - Penalty under Sections 112(a)(iii) and 114AA of Customs Act, 1962 on person who handled import documents and obtained Delivery Orders - Requirement of knowledge and mens rea - Goods imported in containers under several Bills of Entry were found to be old, used and rejected, with shortage in quantity and without requisite authorisation, and were confiscated. Appellant, at the request of a third party, delivered the import documents to the shipping line, obtained the Delivery Orders and handed them over, while the Bills of Entry were filed by another person on behalf of the importer. The Adjudicating Authority imposed penalty on the Appellant under Sections 112(a)(iii) and 114AA, and the FAA upheld it holding that participation in the documentary and delivery process of repetitive character attracted penalty - Whether handling of documents and delivery of the consignments, without proof of knowledge of the offending nature or misdeclaration of the goods, attracts penalty under Sections 112(a) and 114AA - HELD - The FAA sustained the penalty mainly on the ground that participation in the documentary and delivery process of repetitive character was established. Nowhere is there any culpatory statement showing that the Appellant knew the offending nature of the goods or that they were misdeclared. Merely repetitive handling of documents does not bring the Appellant within the ambit of the penal provisions. Penalty under Sections 112(a) and 114AA requires knowledge and mens rea, and handling of documents on the strength of which goods are imported, without proof of knowledge, cannot attract penalty under either provision - The penalties are not sustainable and the appeal is allowed

Create Account



Log In



Forgot Password


Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page



Feedback this page