Commissioner Of Customs (Port) vs. M/S Ashoke Enamel & Glass Work PVT LTD

Facts

The Revenue, Commissioner of Customs (Port), West Bengal, filed an appeal against an order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) that allowed an appeal by M/s. Ashoke Enamel & Glass Work Pvt. Ltd. (the respondent/exporter). The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) had issued a show cause notice alleging an attempt to export prohibited Red Sanders Wooden Logs. The Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata, had imposed a penalty of Rs. 50 lakhs on the respondent. The CESTAT, however, found no evidence to indicate the respondent's knowledge of the contraband and noted that the goods were transported under the Multimodal Transportation of Goods Act, 1993, with responsibility fixed on the transporter after the container was sealed at the exporter's premises by a Central Excise Officer. The Revenue's appeal questioned the CESTAT's findings on the tampering of seals and the application of relevant sections.

Held

The High Court held that the appeal by the Revenue did not raise any substantial question of law, as the matter was entirely factual. The Court found that the show cause notice lacked specific allegations connecting the respondent company to the attempt to export the prohibited Red Sanders Wooden Logs. The Tribunal's finding that there was no evidence to connect the respondent with the contraband was supported by the Panchanama, which indicated the container seal was intact and untampered at the time of interception. Furthermore, statements from the Central Excise Superintendent confirmed that the declared goods were stuffed and sealed in his presence. The Court agreed with the Tribunal that the adjudicating authority had fixed responsibility based on presumption and assumption, as the department failed to produce records linking the respondent to the contraband. The Court also noted the provisions of the Multimodal Transportation of Goods Act, 1993, which fix responsibility on the multimodal transport operator. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Learned Tribunal acted against the provisions of Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962, by failing to penalize the respondent for omission and dereliction leading to the seizure of red sanders. (Revenue's contention: A clear case of omission and dereliction was made out by the Department. Respondent's contention: Not recorded. 2. Whether the Learned Tribunal acted with perversity in concluding that the respondent's seal was tampered with during inspection, when records indicated the container seal was intact until interception. (Revenue's contention: The seal was intact until interception. Respondent's contention: Not recorded. 3. Whether the Learned Tribunal could ignore the provisions of Section 4(1)(c) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and CBEC Circular No. 999/6/2015-CX dated February 28, 2015. (Revenue's contention: The Tribunal ignored these provisions. Respondent's contention: Not recorded.)